Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

[megaplayboy]

Hypothetical:

NeoMephisto, a resident of another dimension that we shall hereafter refer to as "Inferno", enters into a written contract with a certain Enrico "Little Caesar" Banducci, citizen of Victory City, USA, wherein party A(NeoMephisto) provides certain goods and services to party B(Banducci) in exchange for 1)regular cash payments, 2) use of discreet "office facilities", and 3) occasional human services barter. In the event of the expiration of said contract term(after a period of 20 years or Party B's untimely demise) or a material breach, party B is required to pay, in consideration/damages, their "immortal soul".

 

In the event of such a breach, what court venue is proper for subsequent suit? Is said "immortal soul" actual or nominal consideration? If NeoMephisto breaches and Banducci sues, what manner of service is necessary in order to meet the requirements of due process? If Banducci breaches and NeoMephisto sues, can the latter serve process via winged demon messenger or is a regular human process server required? What if NeoMephisto withholds essential goods and services in order to obtain better terms--is this simply hard bargaining or improper duress?

 

 

(Sorry, guys, law school is eating my brain...)

[Certified]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Disclaimer: Not my strong suit but just a fun mythology tidbit.

 

Well you have the Courts of hell and the 10 Kings of Yama who preside over them. Each King presides over a different kind of sin, such as adultery or murder and the courts are filled with suitable punishments. I don't think there is a trial process is this system but who says you can't have one and since it's litigating an infernal contract perhapses all 10 Kings must preside over the hearing.

 

Diyu

[Clonus]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

H

 

In the event of such a breach, what court venue is proper for subsequent suit? Is said "immortal soul" actual or nominal consideration? If NeoMephisto breaches and Banducci sues, what manner of service is necessary in order to meet the requirements of due process? If Banducci breaches and NeoMephisto sues, can the latter serve process via winged demon messenger or is a regular human process server required? What if NeoMephisto withholds essential goods and services in order to obtain better terms--is this simply hard bargaining or improper duress?

 

 

(Sorry, guys, law school is eating my brain...)

 

Ordinarily infernal contracts are a form of magic spell and neither side has any option about taking the consequences for a failure to live up to their side of the bargain as such consequences are spelled out in the contract. Assuming that isn't the case, then, given that the "immortal soul" is the seat of human identity, the terms of the contract are an agreement that Banducci shall become NeoMephisto's slave, and under American law such contracts are null and void. This doesn't preclude NeoMephisto from abducting Banducci into a jurisdiction where slavery is legal of course.

[Psylint]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Ha.

 

There actually was a case brought in Louisiana against "Satan aka Beelzebub aka the Devil aka Lord of the Flies..." The presiding judge noted that the plaintiff had failed to serve the defendant with service of process within the jurisdiction and tossed the case.

 

So precedent requires that the complaining plaintiff comply with the service statutes and common law of that jurisdiction. In the main, this means that they have to physically deliver a copy of the complaint to the defendant in the jurisdiction or at least his/her or its last known address in the jurisdiction. It might be argued that Banducci might be able to leave a copy of the complaint/summons et. al. at the "discrete offices" if Banducci can establish those offices as NeoMephisto's "place of business within the jurisdiction."

Of course if Baducci could get the winged demon messenger certified as a process server in the jurisdiction, that could work too, provided the defendant was served in the jurisdiction. I suppose one could make arguments about Federal Service of Process and air planes being similar to dimensional jumps, but that makes my head fuzzy.

As to venue: The standard venue rules would apply. If the contract were made in Victory City then chances are that the appropriate venue is Victory City. Mostly venue rules are based on convenience and incidence. Where did the activity complained of occur? and Where's the evidence including witnesses. If contract was made in the jurisdiction wherein Victory City resides, and was breached in Victory City, and all of the witness and other evidence of the contract and its breach are primarily located in and around Victory City; I'm betting on Victory City.

 

However, contracts for "immortal souls" like contracts for the sale of human beings, indentured servitude, cash for sex, illegal drugs, etc. are unconscionable and unenforceable. Some jurisdictions go so far as to declare them "void ab initio" meaning that the agreement purporting to be a contract, was never such. So, if the plaintiff were suing for a breach "failing to deliver the agreed upon immortal soul" a court would have no trouble dismissing such a case as a matter of law on summary judgment. (In federal court, the plaintiff's attorney would also likely be subject to Rule 11 sanctions for bring a frivolous and unsupportable lawsuit).

 

Your best tactic to recover the immortal soul, would be to analogize immortal souls to sex in the engagement ring cases. In those cases, there have been some folks who have at least argue that the "legal fiction" that sex is not part of the consideration. This is based on the general fact that withholding sex is grounds for annulling a marriage, and at least some states (at least when I last checked) still required that the marriage contract be consummated by a sexual act between the parties. It'd go nowhere, but you might have fun positing it around the water cooler in between Torts and Property.

 

An alternative, even shakier tactic, would be to argue that the "contract" was really a will. And in that case, the courts generally try to "preserve the testator's intent." Under those circumstances the unconscionable portion of the testament, the immortal soul, might very well, in some jurisdictions, be "blue penciled" out allowing the plaintiff to recover the other "bequests."

 

A stronger alternative would be if Baduci failed to pay NeoMephisto for "services rendered" to sue in "quantum meruit" for the value of such services in a court of equity. Of course, such services would have to be "conscionable" and otherwise legal (i.e. you don't get to sue folks who stiff you on the murder contract, but you might be able to sue them for the value of the gun you loaned them).

 

Failure to perform, i.e. withhold goods and services due another under a contract, is often a material breach, but that's about it. It's really hard to prove duress until it literally involves putting a gun to someone's head. Even if this breach would result in the other parties absolute financial ruin, it's still just a breach. Besides, duress is a defense assert for a breach, that is to say, you breach your contract because you were under duress at the time of formation and therefore your consent wasn't valid.

 

Grand examples of duress:

"Sign me to a record deal or I'll blow your head off"

Shotgun weddings

Ransom demands of kidnappers, terrorists, etc.

 

 

What you're probably looking for is "necessity" that is to say are the circumstance dire enough that the needy party can convert the property of the other to his own use and plead necessity in his defense.

 

Traditional necessity defense:

Jack moors his boat to your dock because of a freak violent storm despite your "No trespassing sign"

There was a case where a guy blew up thousands if not millions of gallons of petroleum during the Second World War who claimed necessity because he thought the Japanese were invading and he wanted to deny them war materials. As I recall, he won.

 

Peace

[Comic]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Since both parties were willing to enter the arrangement which on its face is outside the civil rules of contracts within the USA, the court would have to be one that deals with such contracts, or no court at all.. as it'd be tossed even in civil court. Even in California.

 

Various religious bodies might consider themselves qualified to hear such a case, though that gets into fussy, messy areas, plus most religions would exorcise and excommunicate both the litigant and the alleged transgressor.

 

Likely, it'd be a court of Inferno, and hence stacked.

 

It was this way in The Devil and Daniel Webster, where the Devil met the condition of an American jury by having the souls of dead and damned Americans hear the case.

 

The judge, too, was a dead, damned and highly biased American jurist.

 

Lucky for Webster, American patriotism is stronger than hellfire, and no jury of Americans could hear Webster's stirring rhetoric and not support one of their own against what was, ultimately, a foreigner.

[Balabanto]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

ROFL.

 

I love it.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Thanks for the responses. I will try to think of another hypothetical to add to the thread. Probably something regarding telepathy and probable cause.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Hypothetical: Doppler, a superhero who is a duly deputized officer of the Victory County Sheriff's Department, has super-hearing. He can pinpoint the location of any sound within a half-mile of his location, hear through all but sound-proofed walls, and has a knack for precisely remembering conversations.

In the course of his patrols, Doppler overhears a conversation between two men in a car in a parking garage a quarter mile away. One man is apparently hiring the other one to murder his wife. The sum of 10,000 is asked and received, according to the conversation overheard.

 

Questions: Does Doppler have probable cause to arrest the two men? Would his testimony against them stand up in court? What if the exact sum of money was found on the hitman, who happens to be an ex-con with violent priors?

What would be the probable legal status of using the following superhuman senses, vis a vis evidence gathering/probable cause--telescopic vision? N-ray vision and/or hearing? Detect Lie? Telepathy? Mind Scan? Precognition? Retrocognition?

[McCoy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

First, you're going to have to show to the courts that super senses work. This should not be a problem in a world where they do.

 

Real world examples, DNA is accepted as evidence in a courtroom because most experts in the field believe it is accurate, "lie detectors" are not because most experts do not believe they are unbeatable.

 

Then you get into "expectation of privacy." Doppler is going to need a warrant to overlisten conversations in a private home just as he SHOULD HAVE to tap their phone. On the other hand, the conversation taking place at a whisper in the back booth of the restaraunt is fair game, as a reasonable person should have had an expectation that that conversation might be overheard.

 

The parking garage is a public space, the car is (in most jurisdictions) a private space, it can come down to something as silly as were the windows up or down?

 

Of all the conversations going on in the range of his hearing, what drew his attention to that one? Probable cause may come down to that question.

 

Can he identify the men by anything other than their voices? Did he get to the parking garage in time for a visual ID or did they use names? That will factor into if he can get a warrant.

[Psylint]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Answers:

 

1. Probably, provided that there are no "supers laws" that change the current state of the law. The Supreme Court has blessed the use of technology "to extend the senses", telescopes, parabolic microphones etc. So if a law enforcement officer is our in pubic, e.g. on a public street whilst on patrol, they could use a telescope to spy on you in your house through your window and if they observed evidence of criminal activity, then they would have probable cause. In this case, Doppler could use a "plain view" argument that the initial receipt of the information was lawful, and there's a strong argument that words of "Kill X, and I'll pay you $100,000" and "Okay thanks, let me count it" is probable cause. Remember the threshold for probable cause is really quite low, and in event Doppler would probably do an investigative stop instead and that is based on "reasonable suspicion" as I recall, and that's a really, really low threshold. There are cases where "he looked furtive (shifty like he was hiding somethin') , was known to me to have a history of violent prior convictions" has been upheld as a basis for such a stop.

 

2. The violent priors are mostly irrelevant and would be generally at trial as "prior bad acts" prejudicial to the interests of justice, unless and until the defendant brings "character into question." It could be used, however, as part of the evidence to get a search or arrest warrant (in practice search warrants are pretty much rubber stamped by magistrate judges ((a fair number of them don't even have law degrees in my jurisdiction). At trial, the money is evidence that is admissible as it does tend to support Doppler's claim of what he witnessed.

 

3. Telepathy. Any unconsented to use of telepathy would be an unlawful search, and an independent crime of the telepath. The Constitution provides that the people should be secure in their homes and their persons, there simply is no way for unconsented to Telepathy to be used at trial and keep any semblance of the Constitution.

 

4. Telescopic eaves dropping is all ready a legal tactic, as is using certain forms of N-ray vision (cops do fly overs all the time with infared cameras to look for "Hot spots" that indicate pot growing houses). The same with parabolic microphones.

 

5. Detect Lie would only be permitted once the standards of the community changed. Either the scientific community comes to a "generally accepted consensus" that Detect Lie works and is accurate, or it's simply not admissible.

 

6. Precognition will never be evidence, because by definition the crime hasn't happened yet. The Minority Report notwithstanding.

 

7. Retrocognition would have the same issues as Detect Lie and would need to establish itself as a generally accepted technology.

 

8. Mind Scan? It'll sure help to find folks, but the only way I can see using it as evidence is to have the Scanner testify as to the whereabouts of person x at time y. This would be admissible as testimony, though it causes credibility issues and might be stricken.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

I suspect the courts might make a distinction between "passive" and "active" senses--IOW, Telepathy and some other senses might be considered "active searches" for suspicious activity (and therefore possibly unlawful without a warrant or consent) while some other hypersenses might be passive in the sense of "plain sight" detection of suspicious activity.

[McCoy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

3. Telepathy. Any unconsented to use of telepathy would be an unlawful search' date=' and an independent crime of the telepath. The Constitution provides that the people should be secure in their homes and their persons, there simply is no way for unconsented to Telepathy to be used at trial and keep any semblance of the Constitution.[/quote']

Hope you're right.

 

In my campagine there is a written waiver, modled after the Miranda waiver, that must be signed by the suspect before they can be questioned by a telepath or the questioning is inadmissible.

 

In the Real World I stll can't believe that a suspect can be subjected to invasive medical procedures against their will.

[Steve Long]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Hmmm, time for a quick plug!

 

Many of you are familiar with what I wrote on the subject of "superhumans and the law" in the original Dark Champions, some of which briefly appeared in the current Champions Universe. Well, the next book on my writing docket is Stronghold, and one section of that is going to be a thorough, up-to-date look at superhumans and legal issues (primarily, but not exclusively, ones pertaining to criminal justice and imprisonment). It'll cover the sort of stuff you're asking about here and much more.

 

In closing, I refer you to U.S. ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, an actual federal court case available in vol. 53 of the Federal Rules Decisions, in which a man sues Satan in federal court alleging that Satan tempted him and brought about his downfall, thereby violating his rights under the Civil Rights Act. I won't say more, but read the decision if you can, it's a lot of fun.

[McCoy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

In closing' date=' I refer you to [i']U.S. ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff,[/i] an actual federal court case available in vol. 53 of the Federal Rules Decisions, in which a man sues Satan in federal court alleging that Satan tempted him and brought about his downfall, thereby violating his rights under the Civil Rights Act. I won't say more, but read the decision if you can, it's a lot of fun.

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Mayo_v_Satan.pdf

[Comic]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Hope you're right.

 

In my campagine there is a written waiver, modled after the Miranda waiver, that must be signed by the suspect before they can be questioned by a telepath or the questioning is inadmissible.

 

In the Real World I stll can't believe that a suspect can be subjected to invasive medical procedures against their will.

 

But what about the case where the telepath's telepathy is passive, more like hearing than 'reading'?

 

To such a telepath, thoughts are always being shouted, projected by the thinkers. Just because deaf people can't hear something doesn't mean it isn't loud.

 

Is it invasive to overhear those thoughts?

 

And what about the case where the telepath doesn't use the knowledge gained by telepathy directly, but uses it no differently than a person who reads body language or who uses deductive psychological reasoning (both of which in some form could be built as limited forms of telepathy) to know whether the subject is telling the truth or lying verbally? Why is deductive reasoning or body language reading acceptable, and the identical-results-producing telepathy not?

[McCoy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

But what about the case where the telepath's telepathy is passive, more like hearing than 'reading'?

 

To such a telepath, thoughts are always being shouted, projected by the thinkers. Just because deaf people can't hear something doesn't mean it isn't loud.

 

Is it invasive to overhear those thoughts?

 

And what about the case where the telepath doesn't use the knowledge gained by telepathy directly, but uses it no differently than a person who reads body language or who uses deductive psychological reasoning (both of which in some form could be built as limited forms of telepathy) to know whether the subject is telling the truth or lying verbally? Why is deductive reasoning or body language reading acceptable, and the identical-results-producing telepathy not?

Again, in my world, they've been dealing with telepathy and other superpowers for more than three generations. There are telepaths in most large city's police forces. If they suspect a recruit or a super applying for police powers is a telepath they can be tested, and if they are (1) they are then certified to give testimony in court on evidence they obtained telepathacally and (2) they are told "make sure any suspect you are going to question signs one of these cards first!"

 

Obviously this does not apply to supers without police powers.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Hypothetical no. 3: Secret Identities

How could the law accomodate the concept of a "secret identity", not only with regard to superhumans and costumed adventurers acting in a law enforcement capacity, but also with regard to conducting real estate transactions(buying land for a super lair and then contracting to build it) and such things as marketing and merchandising contracts?

 

I have a modest proposal--the superhuman travels secretly to a secluded government facility, where two and only two government officials handle the super's disclosure of their "true identity". Various means are employed to verify that they are who they say they are, and then the two officials certify and seal the information. Through some super-technological process, their memory of the super's true identity is wiped from their minds, and the data itself is sealed away in a hyper-encrypted, electronically and mechanically locked safe deposit box in a secret NORAD-worthy vault. The only circumstance whereby the super's identity may be divulged is by a special court warrant, similar to a FISA warrant(though it should be more difficult to get one of these). In exchange for this, the government issues them a non-duplicable ID card, which they can use to identify themselves when giving testimony, conducting commercial transactions and so forth.

In order for this to be meaningful, there might have to be some criminal penalties for intentionally removing the mask of a registered super, and/or otherwise publicly divulging such information. Why? Because it's against public policy, in a world where the supervillain is the most dangerous threat to public safety/order, to leave those brave/powerful enough to stop them vulnerable to blackmail or retaliation against themselves or loved ones. In the event of abuse of the privilege of anonymity, there would likely be provisions to revoke it. It's even possible a supervillain could register their identity--providing they were not yet guilty of a crime, nor under investigation for one.

[Psylint]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

But what about the case where the telepath's telepathy is passive, more like hearing than 'reading'?

 

To such a telepath, thoughts are always being shouted, projected by the thinkers. Just because deaf people can't hear something doesn't mean it isn't loud.

 

Is it invasive to overhear those thoughts?

 

And what about the case where the telepath doesn't use the knowledge gained by telepathy directly, but uses it no differently than a person who reads body language or who uses deductive psychological reasoning (both of which in some form could be built as limited forms of telepathy) to know whether the subject is telling the truth or lying verbally? Why is deductive reasoning or body language reading acceptable, and the identical-results-producing telepathy not?

 

1. Passive or active telepathy wouldn't make a difference as far as admissibility. A person under the Constitution has an absolute right to the sanctity of their own mind. Mind you, a "passive" telepath is less likely to be criminally or civilly liable for "mental trespass" but there's no way in Heck that the Constitution can mean anything at all and telepathic evidence be allowed. Not only is it a completely unreasonable search, but it would, in a sense, be a case of compelling the defendant to testify against themselves. Absolutely, Positively, No. If there were even rumblings of a less absolute stance it'd be a toss up between getting the first plane the heck out of dodge and started the Revolution!

 

2. Yes it is invasive to "overhear thoughts" if I wanted you to know the content of my mind, I'd tell you.

 

3. Why can't a telepath read body language? use deduction, etc.? Because they can't be trusted. It's not a credibility thing as much as a reality thing. Can you decide "I'm not going to see the color orange for the next several minutes?" Of course not. Anyone who is acknowledged as a telepathy would have huge credibility issues if they tried to claim "Honest, I didn't read his mind, I observed his body language, tone, etc." It just won't happen.

 

The problem isn't with the result, determining credibility is something we all do everyday, the problem is with the method. Confessions, even accurate ones, that are procured through the use of torture are not admissible, because we as a society have decided and declared that torture is not acceptable. That's the whole "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine.

 

Besides, one's analysis of body language, tone etc. to determine credibility (can't use veracity or truth, because at best this only provides you with a sense of whether or not the speaker believes something to be true; they could in actual fact be wrong) isn't evidence of a crime. At best it is extremely weak character evidence for the proposition that X is or is not being honest and therefore is or is not credible. Furthermore, the two aren't even comparable. At best body language gives a probabilistic estimate of motives, credibility and other fuzzy stuff "I don't know what it is, but she's hiding something." Telepathy on the other hand gives you "God, I'm glad I killed that son of a... I need to pickup bread after this interview ... I wonder if Raul will be at the club tonight... Does this guy ever shower?"

 

When you talk about the admissibility evidence you're really talking about Due Process. And Due Process is a constellation of Constitutional rights that is unsurprisingly enough, about Methods (or Process) not Results. A confession gained by subtle persuasion is fine; a confession gained through cutting off pieces of anatomy while administering electrical shocks to the sexual organs is not. Whether the confession was "true" or not is irrelevant.

 

Of course, the more likely result is that any verifiable telepaths who would be heroes would be impressed into service by their local nation state and deemed Highest Level security assets, and probably be "secured" that is to say imprisoned better than nuclear weapons. And likely controlled by those telepaths that figured, "I can either take over the world, or die to the torch and pitchfork crowd... decisions .... decisions"

 

Peace

[Psylint]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

How does the law accomodate Secret ID's

 

1. Stars do it all the time, they adopt pen-names, stage-names, etc. They are legally granted the ability to sign contracts as those names, be paid, etc. and keep their original birth and hopefully secret identity. Generally, it is a crime to represent yourself as "someone else", but the law has adapted to the particular needs of celebrities by allowing them this freedom.

 

2. We see it with "secret agents." Remember the case of the CIA employee not so long ago and whether or not the Vice President or members of his staff "outed" the employee. Divulging the identity of a secret or covert operative of the intelligence service is at a minimum a felony and can be treason.

 

I suspect that any law concerning superheroes and secret identities would work in a similar fashion.

 

You really don't need to "mind wipe" folks or any of that, just keep it compartmentalized and limited to "need to know." For the longest time, the fact that the US had satellites that could gain information on the surface of earth was a tightly held secret known by just a few, until President Carter disclosed it. (Fortunately, he was President at the time, and so at least arguably had the power to do so legally).

 

In general, though, if you want something to be secure, you don't put it on a computer. It's just too easy to move, copy, transmit, and gain access to information on computers, particularly in this kind of scenario when you would expect to never need it in the usual case, and if you ever needed it once, it would almost always then become declassified.

 

That is, normally, the supers would all play nice and their would be no need to know who they were "really." If something came and they didn't "play nice" and you needed to know who they were really, one would expect in the normal case that they would be convicted of something pretty heinous and therefore no longer entitled to the Secret Identity protection or executed or imprisoned for nigh unto eternity. It would be only in the rare instance where someone had made a seemingly valid, but ultimately invalid claim against the super that you'd need to use that secret identity information more than once.

 

Peace

[FenrisUlf]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Many of you are familiar with what I wrote on the subject of "superhumans and the law" in the original Dark Champions' date='[/i'] some of which briefly appeared in the current Champions Universe. Well, the next book on my writing docket is Stronghold, and one section of that is going to be a thorough, up-to-date look at superhumans and legal issues (primarily, but not exclusively, ones pertaining to criminal justice and imprisonment). It'll cover the sort of stuff you're asking about here and much more.

 

Good news!

 

In closing' date=' I refer you to [i']U.S. ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, an actual federal court case available in vol. 53 of the Federal Rules Decisions, in which a man sues Satan in federal court alleging that Satan tempted him and brought about his downfall, thereby violating his rights under the Civil Rights Act. I won't say more, but read the decision if you can, it's a lot of fun.

 

Ye gods, that sounds as bad as something I can remember hearing about in furry fandom -- someone posted a joke website offering to transform people into anthropomorphic animals, and one unspeakably clueless fanboy tried to sue them for breach of contract or the like. Boy, but he get a name in the fandom... and "Moron!" was it.

[Clonus]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Hypothetical no. 3: Secret Identities

How could the law accomodate the concept of a "secret identity", not only with regard to superhumans and costumed adventurers acting in a law enforcement capacity, but also with regard to conducting real estate transactions(buying land for a super lair and then contracting to build it) and such things as marketing and merchandising contracts?

 

Get yourself a lawyer and incorporate yourself as Captain Amazing Inc. through a series of dummy corporations.

[Steve Long]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

I don't think Mayo is bad -- I think it's just a clever judge having fun, and that he amply succeeds. We could use a few more such witty responses to the idiotic lawsuits filed by prisoners. (I used to have to deal with them on a regular basis when clerking.)

 

Along similar lines, look up the Syufy case from the 9th Circuit sometime. It's an antitrust case concerning Las Vegas movie theaters. The judge, a movie buff, salts the text of the opinion with like 150 movie titles, creating a fun game of "find the movie."

[Psylint]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Get yourself a lawyer and incorporate yourself as Captain Amazing Inc. through a series of dummy corporations.

 

Actually, I would advise Captain Amazing to just sell his publicity rights to a marketing firm for a lump sum payment. He or she wouldn't get as much in the long term potentially (you'd prefer a cut off the top for the big bucks, like Jack Nicholson's percentage of the original Batman movie) but it would be a lot easier. The hero is also then shielded from a lot of liability issues.

 

The problem with assigning publicity rights to a business organization, like a corporation or LLC, that you have a continuing (if not controlling) interest in is that the court might "pierce the corporate veil" and hold you liable personally for misdeeds or defaults by the business organization (which rather roundly defeats the whole purpose of organizing the entity in the first place).

 

Alternatively, it might be a way to "go public" with your celebrity. Organize a corporation, list its equity securities on the exchange, disclose its assets consisting primarily of the publicity rights to Captain Amazing, along with whatever endorsement deals you've signed etc. It just might work.

 

Peace

[Comic]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

1. Passive or active telepathy wouldn't make a difference as far as admissibility. A person under the Constitution has an absolute right to the sanctity of their own mind. Mind you' date=' a "passive" telepath is less likely to be criminally or civilly liable for "mental trespass" but there's no way in Heck that the Constitution can mean anything at all and telepathic evidence be allowed. Not only is it a completely unreasonable search, but it would, in a sense, be a case of compelling the defendant to testify against themselves. Absolutely, Positively, No. If there were even rumblings of a less absolute stance it'd be a toss up between getting the first plane the heck out of dodge and started the Revolution![/quote']

Some excellent points, strongly argued, but until the other side is capably presented -- which I don't pretend to be able to do -- I'll reserve my own opinion. I know it sounds like I've made up my mind in favor of telepathy; more accurately, I just don't know how real world telepathy would be treated by real world judges.

I know what I'd like -- that there never be laws concerning the contents of one's thoughts, never be any punishments for just thinking a thing without expression or action, far better protection for mental processes than any other claim like free speech. I'd like if the contents of thoughts be treated as the complex and intricate things they are, different from intentional communications or deeds.

But I'd like to believe, were there means to detect and discern the innocence of the truly innocent, that such means be vigorously pursued in the cause of justice. A revolutionary idea from science fiction, I know, given how often it is absolutely proven that those found guilty are wrongly condemned, but it might be something that courts should one day consider.

2. Yes it is invasive to "overhear thoughts" if I wanted you to know the content of my mind, I'd tell you.

That's funny. If I wanted someone to know the content of my mind, the last thing I'd do is waste my time trying to directly tell them. Speech and writing are poor forms of communication, fallibly and subject to many slips and intrusions. Judging by the reactions I get to what I say and write, speech and writing are pretty awful. That, or people are.

3. Why can't a telepath read body language? use deduction, etc.? Because they can't be trusted. It's not a credibility thing as much as a reality thing. Can you decide "I'm not going to see the color orange for the next several minutes?" Of course not. Anyone who is acknowledged as a telepathy would have huge credibility issues if they tried to claim "Honest, I didn't read his mind, I observed his body language, tone, etc." It just won't happen.

Case in point of the above. It took me several re-readings to get that you'd interpreted my 'telepath' as someone with psychic powers, rather than my intention: no psychic powers whatsoever, merely the effect of the Hero power 'Telepathy' with the special effects and limitations of 'reading body language' or 'super deduction'.

The supposition was intended to point out that today in real, conventional courts evidence of deduction and of reading body language is generally and routinely accepted. No one raises the argument, so far as I know, "That was unfair, the police out-reasoned my client."

The problem isn't with the result, determining credibility is something we all do everyday, the problem is with the method. Confessions, even accurate ones, that are procured through the use of torture are not admissible, because we as a society have decided and declared that torture is not acceptable. That's the whole "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine.

I'll leave the torture area alone, since it's a sensitive one for some at the moment.

Besides, one's analysis of body language, tone etc. to determine credibility (can't use veracity or truth, because at best this only provides you with a sense of whether or not the speaker believes something to be true; they could in actual fact be wrong) isn't evidence of a crime. At best it is extremely weak character evidence for the proposition that X is or is not being honest and therefore is or is not credible. Furthermore, the two aren't even comparable. At best body language gives a probabilistic estimate of motives, credibility and other fuzzy stuff "I don't know what it is, but she's hiding something." Telepathy on the other hand gives you "God, I'm glad I killed that son of a... I need to pickup bread after this interview ... I wonder if Raul will be at the club tonight... Does this guy ever shower?"

This seems like a case of choosing an item not on the menu. Sherlock Holmes was accused of being a mind-reader, spiritualist, spy or magician for his use of observation and deduction. I'm not positing 'what if body language were used as is commonly experienced?' I'm asking 'what if body language were used as effectively as Telepathy?'

When you talk about the admissibility evidence you're really talking about Due Process. And Due Process is a constellation of Constitutional rights that is unsurprisingly enough, about Methods (or Process) not Results. A confession gained by subtle persuasion is fine; a confession gained through cutting off pieces of anatomy while administering electrical shocks to the sexual organs is not. Whether the confession was "true" or not is irrelevant.

Yeah, I'm thinking that likening Telepathy to torture seems to be calculated to associate two completely unlike things, and by doing so tarring them with the same brush. Torture is morally reprehensible, intentionally inflicts harm, has been demonstrated to produce poor results, and introduces terror to the process. Take these things away from torture, and you reduce it subtle persuasion, which is, according to you, fine. If they're still similar, then have you painted telepathy as fine? If they're dissimilar at this point, why are we comparing them, again?

Of course, the more likely result is that any verifiable telepaths who would be heroes would be impressed into service by their local nation state and deemed Highest Level security assets, and probably be "secured" that is to say imprisoned better than nuclear weapons. And likely controlled by those telepaths that figured, "I can either take over the world, or die to the torch and pitchfork crowd... decisions .... decisions"

In a Champions campaign, this outcome wouldn't tend towards my roleplay tastes, but it's one plausible scenario.

In the real world, I'd no doubt vigorously defend the security of telepaths from irrational mob action, for much the same reason as I'd defend anyone. There's a lot more to be gained by the free actions of free people than from oppression and tyranny.

Peace

Well reasoned, and interesting points. Thank you.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Hypothetical no. 4: Super-Charisma, Mind/Emotion Control etc and the legal process. Should a person with mental powers be permitted to attend their own trial? What about someone with super-pheromones or some other form of "super-charisma/likability"? Are there any provisions of existing law which would justify excluding a defendant/plaintiff from the courtroom?