The Legal Geeks
The Legal Geeks are proud to be attorneys and geeks. We have been recognized by the ABA Journal Web 100 for one of the best legal podcasts in 2017 and nominated for Best Podcast by the Geekie Awards in 2015. Please enjoy our podcasts exploring legal issues Sci Fi, comic books, and pop culture, from Star Wars to Captain America and all things geek. Our podcasts are not legal advice and for entertainment only.
The Legal Geeks
Recorded Live at WonderCon! Yar, The Pirates of Star Wars
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
It is four o'clock, it's time for rock and roll. My name is Josh Ferdowland. I'm one of the founding attorneys of the Legal Geeks. Thank you all for joining us for Yar, the Pirates of Star Wars Yay With me today for this grand voyage to my left is Stephen Tollefield.
Stephen Tollafield:Hello.
Joshua Gilliland:Judge Carol Mahara and Katrina Wright, and everyone's a lawyer, except for Judge Nahara, who's a judge, and we're going to have a lot of fun. We're all lifelong Star Wars fans. We all are into this, and we have a question that's been up on who owns the Onyx Cinder? We're going to be coming back to that and discuss those legal issues. So let's begin First off. What is piracy? Star Wars has a rich history with pirates. The animated series all have pirates in them. Live action mentions pirates a lot as well. So what is it legally? Well, that means let's talk about case law.
Joshua Gilliland:So, we have piracy defined both in our code, but it then references international law and treaties in order to get to the full definition. So whoever on the high seas commits the crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations. Okay, what's the law of nations? So let's take a look at, let's break this down. We have to understand what the high seas are and what the law of nations are in order to get our definition. High seas are and what the law of nations are in order to get our definition. High seas are defined as open waters of sea or ocean as distinguished from ports and havens and waters within narrow headlands on the coast. So, on the Great Lakes, yeah, it's an inland ocean, but there aren't pirates on the Great Lakes, they're criminals. If that happens, there aren't pirates on the Great Lakes, they're criminals. If that happened, then the Convention of the High Seas states that piracy includes and this is a mouthful any illegal act of violence, detention or any act of deprivation committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship, a private aircraft and direct it. Okay, we now have a working definition.
Joshua Gilliland:When has this come into play? Fun fact, we have an ancient doctrine in the United States. It's called don't touch our boats, touch our boats, we will come after you. We started with a six-ship navy and decided we'll take on the British Empire that has 800. That's how we roll. And you had the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean in the early 19th century and during the Chaffer administration trying to extract tribute from American shipping.
Joshua Gilliland:Jefferson asked for a force bill or an authorization to use force to go after a clean house. So when you hear the Marine Corps hymn that says from the Paz Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, that's where this comes from. So we have in 1802, a force bill passed by Congress where we say we're taking out the pirates and it authorizes American military ships to go out and engage pirates and to go out and capture them. We've only declared war a handful of times. This is our first time with a force built. We enact them multiple other times throughout our history and so, like we had one to eliminate the Ku Klux Klan, we've had them for every non-war out there, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, going into Iraq all of those were authorized by Congress. This is the first time Congress does that and it's Jefferson, which people don't expect, the guy who was against the Navy and then afterwards tells President Adams hey, you were right to build up the Navy that I used.
Joshua Gilliland:Well, how do we compare this to Star Wars and the New Republic? Because we see the New Republic have a really weird track record with pirates. So in Mandalorian, season 3, we have the pirate siege of Navarro, where pirates go in and they take over the town on the planet and you have our heroes going out saying like, hey, we need an authorization to go out and fight the pirates on Navarro. And the Republic says no, now it's middle management, and you have an Imperial remnant officer just hanging out giving bad-luck advice. And that's why we have the New Republic not engage pirates in the market.
Joshua Gilliland:On the flip side, with Aten it's, we will send planes within two flaps. I'm sure it had nothing to do with a mint being on the planet. I mean it's like saying you know what? That's where the oil is. So, yeah, we will send force to go protect the oil fields and if you have a plant full of money, it's a good bet. People are going to defend that very quickly with no questions asked. So let's talk about the onyx cinder. So this is audience interaction time, and Stephen's going to help us understand the law with you. Have a crashed spaceship, Stephen.
Stephen Tollafield:Yeah, so if you have a moment if you haven't already done so you can participate in our little QR code quiz to see who the popular recipient of the onyx cinder would be. When we were doing our podcast on the skeleton crew, which we all loved, it was so great we were really wrestling with this throughout the series because it was really unclear from the get-go who owned it Like. Where did it come from, how did it wind up on AT-AT and who did it belong to? So we kind of revisited this question throughout the podcast series. So now it's at the end of the show. Who should it go to? Rightfully? And there are some interesting little twists and turns in this legal question.
Stephen Tollafield:Let's see how the poll is coming out here. Okay, so it looks like Takranod and SM33 are getting quite a few votes 19.4% of you say SM33, and about 15% people say Takranod Great response. However, generally they're thieves. Unfortunately, and generally in our legal system, there isn't a way for stolen property to. Is that better? Okay, great, thank you. It's generally not possible for stolen property to ripen into a valid title or ownership right, so generally we wouldn't think of SM 3, 3 and Takronaut as being as being rightful heirs of that of the of the onyx cinder. Let's see about 14% think of Wim as being the valid owner because after all he called claims he's on the new ship. That seems like a really valid way of acquiring property. And also Fern, kb, neil and Wim as a joint venture. That got about 23, 24. So they're actually kind of the front runners. Good point, those are actually really good instincts because in our legal system we have a thing called the law of fines, which basically means finders, keepers. If someone has abandoned property then whoever finds it can take it and just acquire a valid ownership interest in the abandoned property.
Stephen Tollafield:However, unfortunately, here on the slide we see that there's a statute, a federal statute that Congress enacted in 1987, called the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, and Section 2106A of that statute says that actually law of fines doesn't apply to abandoned ships. It's one of those exceptions where a statute overrules the common law. So unfortunately claims ease does not apply to abandoned ships. So that leaves the local At-At and governments and about 12% of folks thought that would be a good recipient of the Onyx Cinder. And that is also very prescient because under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act any ship that is sunken off the coast of the United States actually belongs to the federal government, but then the statute operates to transfer title to that shipwreck directly to the state in which the ship rests. So the local government the analog being kind of ad aden would be a very tempting response under their federal statute.
Stephen Tollafield:However, unfortunately this is the abandoned Shipwreck Act, so in order for this statute to apply, the shipwreck has to actually be abandoned. And, as Josh pointed out, you don't touch our ships. The federal government never abandons its property, and so even if a ship is sunk and is not recoverable, we assume it's a well-settled principle in our jurisprudence that the United States never abandons any shipwreck. So a ship of the United States would not be covered by this statute. So the answer is probably that since this is a New Republic ship, as we learned in kind of the last couple of episodes, the Republic would never have stopped looking for it and so it's not abandoned, and so the answer is probably that the New Republic would assert a valid claim of ownership and adopt it into its navy. So that's kind of a boring answer, because who doesn't want the kids to get it? Because that's the best. But unfortunately this probably belongs to the New Republic. But thank you for participating. Those are really good answers and really good instincts. Like the law of fines, finders, keepers really is very tempting.
Joshua Gilliland:Thank you, stephen Judge Kahara. Let's talk about the time that a 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 Disney movie, but not the Disney movie on the right with Captain Jack Sparrow.
Judge Carol Najera:It's much more like the one on the far left. It is a story of a child leader who takes a group of children on a wonderful adventure to a distant place in search of a treasure. Sound familiar. Now, in this story, our Paduantano, our Peter Pan, takes her group of pseudo-lost boys, which are the younglings, to the crystal caves to find kyber crystals for their lightsabers. Along the way, or with them, they have their little Wendy character.
Judge Carol Najera:Huyan Hondo Onaka is the villainous pirate in the middle and, as you can see, he is doing his 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 stories have in common with regards to our pirates? Well, both of them have villains who are pirates.
Judge Carol Najera:So let's go back to what we've already discussed and our original question what is piracy? Because I can sit here and say they are pirates, but I better be able to back that up. Well, the first thing that I looked at, in addition to what Josh has already told us about, is what I call the US version of the Code of Hammurabi, which is our United States Constitution, specifically Article 1, section 8, clause 10, is also known as the Define and Punish Clause. It grants Congress the power to define and punish piracies committed on the high seas or, in this case, the vast expanse of space. Historically, the Constitution was referring to high crimes committed on the high seas outside the jurisdiction of a state or country. This is why, as Josh says, you can't have piracy in the lake because there's a jurisdiction there. It's got to be out in the high seas or out in the vast expanse of space where there is no jurisdiction. That's key.
Judge Carol Najera:Revisiting 18 USC 1651, which Josh already told us, discusses how piracy is under the law of nations, of nations. Hando is smuggling, kidnapping for ransom, looting, robbing. These are all crimes defined by the laws of nations and committed outside the jurisdiction of any recognized government. Therefore, under 1651 and the understanding of the Constitution, he is a pirate. Now, 18 USC 1652, 53, and 54 are tricky because they deal with pirates that are acting on behalf of some government or are being outfitted and given supplies by another government or a private entity. This is getting into the realm of privateers.
Judge Carol Najera:Now let's think this doesn't really apply to Hondo and this is what makes him a pure pirate. He doesn't care what government you belong to. He doesn't care what side you're on. You can be Count Dooku or you can be Obi-Wan. He'll capture you both just as fast and put you in the same cell, and in fact, he did Next. So what does this mean to the Anaca gang? Well, as I put down there, it means our flags mean death. What do you mean by that?
Judge Carol Najera:18usc 1111 talks about if murder is committed during a robbery, you're looking at death, especially if you're a pirate. Now, 18 USC 2111 defines robbery as using force or violence or intimidation to take or attempt to take from the person or presence of another anything of value. And in this case, hondo was trying to take from the children, from the younglings, the kyber crystals. Now, what's his intention? Does he intend to kill anybody?
Judge Carol Najera:Well, let's think about what he says. He has a group of children basically trapped in an air vent hiding. He knows they're there. He tells his minions to throw in these destructive devices. Even one of his crew are like wait a minute, there are children in there, they could be killed. And his response is to look at him and say, well, then there'll be no witnesses. This is classically what they were talking about in 18 USC 111. So where does this all leave us? It leaves us that Hondo Onaka is a pirate, and not all pirates are lovable incompet, competent villains like Captain Jack and Captain Hook In the Star Wars universe. Some of them are irredeemable and should be executed, not rebranded, as lovable good guys in a ride in the park across the street.
Joshua Gilliland:I'm calling out Smuggler's Run on this one. It highlights that Star Wars is really big into redemption. I'll name my new ship after the kid Everything will be forgiven, mere details.
Joshua Gilliland:Let's talk about smuggling puffer pigs. So Star Wars Rebels has a lot of pirates and has a lot of Honda, who again has made a lot of life choices that are for the best, and we get to see Lando Calrissian trying to smuggle puffer pigs in order to go do mining, because they have a really good nose and can go smuggle or go find rare earth minerals.
Joshua Gilliland:So, what's this mean Is using the goats to go through an imperial blockade to deliver a puffer pig. Is that piracy? I'm going to go say no, and here's why A pirate can be a smuggler. A smuggler isn't necessarily a pirate. Two different crimes.
Joshua Gilliland:Now you have a lot of pirates who diversify their interests and have different services that they offer, whether it's transporting people from point A to point B, maybe taking puffer pig places. However, the act of trying to take a single puffer pig for delivering for the service is not piracy. It's definitely smuggling and a touch of blockade learning, but it is fascinating because again we get to see here Billy Dee Williams play Mando again, and it was the first time he had done so since Return of the Jedi. So, katrina, let's talk about Skull Mountain or, excuse me, skull Ridge Mountain in Skeleton Purge.
Katrina Wraight:Let us Skull Mountain or excuse me Skull Ridge Mountain in Skeleton Purge, let us. So what we know about Captain Renaud's secret pirate lair is that it's deep in the heart of the mountain and all who enter face ruin or slaughter. So the question here is what property are we talking about? In the law there's a distinction between personal property and real property. So we'll start with the personal 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 I think it's been mentioned previously as well and something that is abandoned.
Katrina Wraight:If it is found in a place, the owner intended to leave it, but it is in such a condition that it's apparent that he has no intention of returning to claim it.
Katrina Wraight:So for this we can talk about the actual coins and the treasure that is in the lair itself. So we're going back to finders, keepers again, because why not? And that's the theory we were talking about where it becomes the property of whoever finds it. But in this context there's a theory, a legal theory, that we pretty much only get to talk about in law school. So I'm very excited to get to talk about today, and that is treasure trove, and that's coins or currency that are deliberately hidden by the owner sufficiently long ago that the owner can be considered dead or no longer discoverable. So, as you can probably imagine, this began with the English common law, where the crown was taking everything that was not theirs and making it their own, and that became the way in American common law too, and in a good number of states, the treasure trove belongs to the finder unless the original owner reclaims it, so that's still applicable.
Katrina Wraight:However, in a good number of places, states are trying not to encourage trespass, which obviously that does, so that they discourage the treasure trove. I want to give you guys a little bit of practical law, in that there is a specific statute, a federal statute, called the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act that went around in 2016. That gives each state an unclaimed property fund where proceeds from abandoned bank accounts unpresented checks, are turned over to the state after a specific period of time. So you guys should all go to google, you should type in your state name and you should type in unclaimed property and find out where that fund is and see if there's any money sitting there for you.
Katrina Wraight:I can see in the crowd that some people have found it so take a look later, google your state and unclaimed properly, and you'll see that state fund and see if there's anything missing for you. The other type of property is the real property. So real property is the stuff, like the actual land, the real estate that cannot be abandoned like the personal property can, and the question here is whether Captain Renaud held title to the property. So for real property the true owner is the guy whose name is on the deed and that's what it comes down to. But this is kind of a strange situation in that we're talking about like the subterranean land right, and apparently that is also owned by the owner of the land above it. That has some current context and relevance in that there's that lady on TikTok who's digging below her land.
Katrina Wraight:You guys have seen that too, that's because she owns that, because you generally own the land below your property, is there certain rules and restrictions to make sure that there's safety involved? Of course, but, yeah, the ownership of real property extends downward, from the surface of your property and technically, in theory, all the way to the center of the earth. So with real property, whose it belongs 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 he dies what's called in probate, and the property is distributed according to the terms of the will. You can pretty much put whatever you wanted there to a certain degree.
Katrina Wraight:Something that's interesting in this context is there's a specific area of concern in probate called probate piracy, which is the involuntary redistribution of assets, like property poaching, and certain people are even equating it to RICO, and that it's specific enterprises that go out and defraud old people for their trusts and their property before it gets handed off.
Katrina Wraight:So that's an interesting consideration that you can raid a trust and hide the assets and leave the beneficiaries left in the dark.
Katrina Wraight:If you died without a will, then you die in test state and then the property is distributed per the laws of the state which determines who the heirs are and what percentage they get and the proportions of that property. The only other thing that might come into play here is adverse possession, which people generally love to hear about, which we refer to as squatters rights, which a trespasser in physical possession of the land owned by someone else can come to hold the title if they just kind of hang out there and don't leave Specific elements. For that is, it has to be actual possession and you have to physically be there and somehow demonstrate that. So if you put up a fence or improvements or whatever it might be, something that puts the original owner on notice that you're trespassing and kind of taking ownership of that land, the possession has to be hostile. And this doesn't mean unfriendly, it just means you can't be given permission such that, like a tenant has permission to be there, right, so they will not be there hostily.
Katrina Wraight:It has to be open and notorious and that it has to be obvious again, giving the owner right that notice that you are trespassing. It has to be continuing, so you have to be there for a certain amount of time. In California I think it's five years, so not that long and then exclusive, not shared, and this kind of comes up. The main context this comes at in reality is when some guy thinks his property is a little bit over, a little bit farther than it actually is, and they put up a fence. That fence is long enough. There it's obvious it's exclusive. Then you actually get that additional piece of land added to your property because of adverse possession.
Joshua Gilliland:Thank you, Judge Kahara. Let's talk about Star Wars Resistance, which has lots of highlights.
Judge Carol Najera:Okay, the Star Wars Resistance presents a new breed, I like to say, of pirate. To put it in context, hondo Anakdo was active and listen carefully during the period when the Republic was in the government and the separatist movement was on. Then we had the resistance, we had the Battle of Endor and then we had the New Republic and their resistance, which was I mean, I'm sorry, the First Republic and their resistance. I never had it right the first time. The New Republic and their resistance, the First Order. So it's kind of a complicated history, but keep in mind and the reason I explain that is because there are many, many decades between Hondo Anaka and his gang and Kragan Gore and his gang. This is and I'm going to use Josh's example kind of like the Barbary pirates, comparing them to the pirates of Somalia, the difference really being that our previous pirates only cared about property. They didn't care which side they were on. And this is going to change a little. We're going to see a little tweaking of all of that. Craig and Gyor and his gang are targeting the Colossus base refueling station on Castellon to help the First Order take it over from the New Republic. So this is interfering with the government. In that context. We have to look at this as not just pirates but privateers and terrorists, to determine what our villains are. And in this case our villains are Craig and Gore and his gang and the First Order. So let's see, we have to look a little bit more at international definitions of pirates. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines piracy as illegal acts of violence, detention or deprivation committed on the high seas for private ends. The historical context and legal framework for punishing piracy acts are rooted in the need to protect maritime commerce and ensure the safety of 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 18 USC 1652, and let's talk about 1653, which is interesting because it's a heading that starts aliens as pirates, but not this kind of aliens. But it actually is aliens as pirates in that particular statute, a citizen, a pirate who is a citizen of one state attacks another state and the state it attacks has a treaty with the state that the pirates is citizen of. They state attacks another state and the state it attacks has a treaty with the state that the pirate is a citizen of. They're looking at life Now, when we put this definition into the mix, as well as the previous 1651 we talked about. And what is Craig and Gore? Well, craig and Gore is a Quaran. He is attacking the Colossus base on Castellan, castellon's a separate state. Now the question is and I'll be honest with you, I actually Googled this and looked there are no treaties between Quarren and Castellon. So under 1653, he is not defined as a pirate, but he is under 1651 and, more importantly, under UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. So we now know Creighton Gore is a pirate. But is that all? He is Going back to 18 USC 1654, that defines what a privateer is.
Judge Carol Najera:What is a privateer? It is a person who. What is a privateer? It is a person who fits out an arm or attempts to fit out an arm, or is concerned with furnishing, fitting out or arming any private vessel of war with the intent that such vessel be employed to cruise or commit hostilities upon the other government. One of the goals is to interfere with the policy of that government. Now Craig and Gore is a privateer under this. Remember, at one point he is discussing open and notoriously the fact that he expects a financial gain from the First Order. He explained clearly that it is expensive to outfit and arm his crew, pay them, keep them going, the weapons, all of that, and he's whining and complaining to the First Order, and the First Order is assuring him that they'll take care of all of this. He is now acting as a privateer.
Judge Carol Najera:But the inquiry doesn't end there, because now let's look at the third of our little grouping, the terrorists. And while piracy itself is not terrorism, there are connections Going back to the Somali pirates. The Somali pirates who basically, were funded by ISIS. There was an overlap there where individuals were involved with piracy but also engaging in supporting terrorist activities. Now the Somali pirates were prosecuted for piracy under. All of this, but not terrorism Sounds familiar, and if anyone wants the sites for any of these cases, I'll tell you afterwards. I don't want to put them all up there because I only have I'm on a strict schedule here and this, but this was exactly what the relationship was between Craig and Gore and the First Order.
Judge Carol Najera:Now talking a little bit more about this next, craig and Gore is a pirate, a privateer, but not a terrorist. But let's look at the First Order. The First Order is outfitting a ship, a warship to go against another government to affect their policy. In this case they are commissioning Kragen-Gore and his gang to go to the Colossus Station and kidnap Tara Doza so that they can force her father to come in and change the policy and allow the First Order to come in and be an active presence there. This is interfering. This is clearly interfering with the policy of that government. The First Order are, under this definition, terrorists, not Craig and Gore, but the First. But the first order, craig and Gore, is a pirate and a privateer. He's really only in it for the money. He really doesn't have a governmental policy view on all of this Kind of like think die hard. Everyone thought they were terrorists, but they weren't terrorists. They were in it for the money. So that's what we have.
Joshua Gilliland:Thank you, your Honor Stephen. Let's talk about defending yourself with a shanty.
Stephen Tollafield: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 on screen and so, like with Andor and Ahsoka, and now with a trial of Jod under the pirate code, we were like, yes, and also there was an appeal involved, and I'm a former appellate practitioner and so I was like, oh my God, this is the best. So I have thoughts, so bear with me.
Stephen Tollafield:So first off, a couple of comments just about his trial was a criminal proceeding, obviously, because there was a punishment involved. He was sentenced to death. But Brutus the captain was acting as both the judge and the prosecutor, which is a bit of a conflict of interest. So that's kind of contrary to one way that the Pirate Code is contrary to our system, where that's a very separate job. And also there was no jury.
Stephen Tollafield:Brutus kind of singly convicted Jod of the crime, and so that's also contrary to our constitution, where you have a right to a jury to convict you of any crimes. Also, we observe that Jod doesn't have a lawyer, he's his own advocate. So that would violate under our constitution the right to representation when you're accused of a crime. And then, finally, there was this really interesting concept of equal time to present your defense, because Brutus examined the evidence, then convicted Jod and then they're like, oh wait, but he has a right to an appeal and he has equal time, which sort of overlaps with an appeal. But we don't. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, judge, but I mean certainly there's limits, based on refereeing, how long someone can go on with their defense, but we don't limit the amount of time necessarily to the exact moment that the prosecution takes to present their case right.
Judge Carol Najera:You know we can limit the presentation and perhaps the examination of the witnesses. That's in the code.
Stephen Tollafield:Right.
Judge Carol Najera:But in terms of everything else, no, it's wide open.
Stephen Tollafield:You don't have like a cool plasma hourglass counting down the moments you don't have a….
Stephen Tollafield:No, that'd be rad. It's giving Wizard of Oz. It's very cool, I love it. But that's kind of contrary to our criminal proceedings. But then we get to the appeal where they're like, okay, now you get to the appeal where they're like, okay, now you get to challenge your sentence. But this is really interesting because he gets to talk.
Stephen Tollafield:He's generally in our system, when there's a decision by a judge you don't like, you go to another court with different judges that have supervisory authority over that original court to present your appeal to convince the lower court, that convince the upper court that the lower court was wrong. But here John is just talking to the same judge. That's not an appeal. We would think of that more as a motion to reconsider or something like that, where you try to convince the judge that they got something wrong. So that's kind of different from our system.
Stephen Tollafield:Also, what struck me was that this was an automatic right to appeal, which is actually one of the ways in which our system is consistent with the Pirate Code, because when there's a conviction of a capital offense in the states that do that, you often get an appeal directly to the state Supreme Court just to review that sentence. So that's actually one way in which the system was the same and that's different from a discretionary appeal where you have to petition the appellate court to hear your case. And lastly, I'll just note that his appeal is peculiar in the way that he's raising new arguments on his appeal as opposed to just arguing about why Brutus got it wrong in the first place, and that's where he presents his shanty defense. But that's really contrary to how we think about appellate courts. But I was really excited to see we think about appellate courts but. But I was really excited to see the pirate code in action and see about trial and an appeal. It was great.
Katrina Wraight:Thank you, stephen, katrina, let's talk about the Bad Batch so we're going to go back to I think it's season two, episode one and two for Spoils of War and Ruins of War. That's when they are sent out to obtain Dooku's war chest and they're promised freedom from all of their debts if they succeed, because it's such a massive collection of loot. And then I think it's not until ruins of war, the second episode, that we learn where this war chest came from and how he actually obtained it. And it was from the exploitation of his people in his quest for power and ultimately it destroyed the city. So there's kind of a question that's been going around here is like can one loot loot?
Katrina Wraight: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 some loot they are intending on taking, and I think the bad batch test I heard that they're merely intercepting it right. So it's a question of can you steal stolen goods? So you certainly can, based on the definition of robbery that we've been talking about before. But possession of stolen property itself is a separate crime from the actual theft of taking it. So in California it's penal code section 496, and this is what we call a wobbler of an offense, meaning it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
Katrina Wraight:And you can be charged with possession of stolen property if you knowingly possess stolen property and in criminal law it's always fun, it's if you knew or should have known.
Katrina Wraight:So even if you didn't know, if you should have known, you'll get that mens rea. That could be avoided if there's no obvious evidence that it was stolen. So say you buy something and you just had no idea. It seemed legit, but there's no evidence, you can get around that mens rea. And then, yeah, if you possess it so if you received it, you bought it, you concealed it or withheld it then you can be on the hook for possession of stolen property as well. So there's no doubt they're probably on the hook for that because they know what they are doing. That intention is there? One of the main hints here may be the name of the Bad Batch's ship, which is Marauder and that is defined as a raider in search of plunder. So that gives us a pretty good indication of what the answer here might be this is kind of like a legal slash moral question, right, like can the good guys be pirates?
Katrina Wraight:for sure, we've given you the definition of privacy a good amount of times today, but it's the act of robbery or criminal violence or plunder committed for 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 attack the ship or other members, check right. So they've got all of those elements met. We've been talking about the Constitution section of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to define and punish robbery. So that's where that definition comes from. But we do have a kind of interesting case it's not that too many cases where there's charges of piracy, but there's a case the United States versus Hawtham 747F sub. I think it's up there or it was anyways, I can also give you that site later if you'd like it. But in that situation it was kind of a normal Somali pirate situation and it was a United States Navy vessel and it was actually going undercover as a merchant vessel. So the pirates mistook it the military going undercover as a merchant vessel. So the pirates mistook it the military vessel for a merchant ship, and decided that they were going to try and take it over. So they opened fire on the crew. They tried to get the crew to surrender for a ransom, like you do in a typical piracy situation, but unfortunately, yes, it was a US military ship, so that wasn't going to go down too well crew or the pirates there.
Katrina Wraight:The attorneys on behalf of the pirates moved for dismissal under 1651 that we've been talking about, and they argued that the indictment, or facts and indict, were insufficient to establish the crime of piracy. But the judge here this is a 2010 case concluded and I think one of the main points they were trying to make is like we just shot at it. We didn't actually get to steal anything from it, which was true, right, there was no robbery, because that was never. What were they going to rob? And that was. It was certainly going to end a lot differently before that. It's a miracle they were alive, to be honest. But the judge concluded that we need to define piracy according to contemporary customary international law which can change over time, so kind of modernizing the statute and the definition such that actual robbery was not required and they could be charged with piracy just for shooting at the wrong ship.
Katrina Wraight:So, again don't touch our ships.
Joshua Gilliland:Right, and for AV chat the projector just went off, but we're going to proceed anyway because that's how we roll when we try to fix that. Let's talk about young Jedi adventures and, stephen, let's talk about that. Can a prince be a pirate?
Stephen Tollafield:Yeah, Cyrus Bundy is one of the characters on Young Jedi Adventures and he cosplays as a pirate. His name is Tabor Van Dorn and so while he's in his costume he does commit a few crimes. He like steals things and, you know, raids a cafe and stuff. So this Young Jedi Adventures actually raises the issue of child pirates, which I don't want to spend a ton of time on because it's a little. It gets into like kind of child soldier territory which is kind of bleak and not great to talk about. But I will say that it's a very undefined area of international law. First, piracy, as we were talking about, is a crime of general jurisdiction, so any state or any country in the world can prosecute a pirate that they apprehend. So there's and while there's an international criminal court in the Hague, there's no international juvie court.
Stephen Tollafield:That's not a thing. The International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction of people over the age of 18. So that leaves children, who are conscripted into piracy, kind of at the mercy of whatever country they're apprehended by.
Audience:And under.
Stephen Tollafield:There is a UN Convention on the Rights of the child, the CRC, which does obligate member states to apply human rights to children, including focusing on the well-being of the child as opposed to punishment when children are in criminal proceedings. But that doesn't really have much teeth and there's no uniform minimum age of criminal responsibility in international law. So while here in California we think of people who are 14 and under as not being capable of being kind of adult criminals, they're diverted into juvenile justice system. In many countries around the world that age is much younger. So you wind up with kind of kids in the criminal justice system and, of course, in piracy hot spots like Som. They're not necessarily the greatest on the record for human rights, so there's very minimal procedural protections for children who are kind of apprehended and prosecuted as pirates in that part of the world. So I guess I will just say that you 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 the ocean.
Stephen Tollafield:Stay on land is my free legal advice for the day.
Joshua Gilliland:And with that just to unpack that there could be a weird sovereign immunity issue with him.
Stephen Tollafield:Yeah, yeah, I mean he's a prince, so if he's doing all these kind of crimes like, is he even prosecutable as a prince? I mean, there's a little bit of recent jurisprudence in the US Supreme Court about whether you can be convicted as a criminal when you're sort of a leader of a country, but that's sort of a interesting question that probably worth unpacking at some point.
Joshua Gilliland:Yeah. So there's a lot there. And with that, let's last topic and then we'll have some questions on privateers. So on the final point of privateers, we have people who look like good guys, who are privateers Han Solo, axe Wolves from Mandalorian, Season 3. They have a ship, they fly around and they're like the A-team that if you have a problem and you can find them and you can afford them, you can hire them. And is that okay?
Joshua Gilliland:Well, remember when we started our country and we said we have our six-ship Navy and the Brits have an 800-ship Navy, we had to make up a gap. We had privateers then, like we'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 the war of 1812. We haven't done it recently, but even during World War II you had private boat owners going out to do submarine patrols and being able to help keep an eye out for threats to the nation. Or if you look at Great Britain, dunfermline is a great example of everyone rallying and working together.
Joshua Gilliland:Those could be considered privateers, or really, really, really good people who decided, no, we're not going to let the Nazis win, but I'm old-fashioned that way. So, yeah, good guys can be privateers, they can also be bandits, win. So. But with that we have seven minutes for questions. Nothing should be considered legal advice, don't?
Audience:be delinquent yes, sir, yes sir Is it legal to name the beneficiary of your will as the winner of a wacky contest, like it's a mad, mad, mad mad world.
Joshua Gilliland:Wow, that is a real strong, deep cut. I don't know how you thought about it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world. I'm flashing back. I would think there's a specificity problem with that in your will because it's contingent upon someone winning a contest. I think that could make it void. Do any of you have any thoughts on? We're going down a 1960s rabbit hole?
Audience:I did not foresee there's a remake, though, of Mr Bean.
Joshua Gilliland:Really yeah Again, I do adore that film, but it's been a while.
Katrina Wraight:There's a degree of specificity to that.
Joshua Gilliland:There is, you know, but is it going to be a competition that's going to happen.
Judge Carol Najera:That's true, and if the competition's going to go on for you don't have a set end for it then you've got a rule against perpetuities problem, oh gosh.
Audience:Yeah, and so life can be got a rule against perpetuities problem. I just thought of it right now In what we see with skeleton crew and FABF and everything, would there be some mitigating factors if the people who are being charged with piracy are not given a lot of the are forced into this situation not by choice but by circumstances and whatnot. So would there be some mitigating factors for some of them, some. So there's somethingating factors for some of them.
Joshua Gilliland:So there's something. There's the concept of impressment of sailors, which is a good way to start a war, and it has. So the issue is what did you do after you joined that ship? And there was the Confederate warship Shenandoah. That was a raider that was built in England and then decided to go out and terrorize the high seas and as they were going after United States ships and capturing them and starting to impress some sailors into service for the Confederacy, the issue then was they didn't know the Civil War was over and they continued raiding. And then they had a nasty surprise realizing oh darn, we're actually pirates now. Does that mean everyone gets hung? And the answer was yes, all of them could get hung, which is why they won the Negro Line for a great group. So, anyway, good book, last slide down. That gets into that. Yes, sir.
Audience:Comment and question. So my wife and I were both huge fans of Negro Geeks. We did not see you guys on the schedule, ok, so we just by chance we ended up in here.
Stephen Tollafield:We're like oh my god, this is great.
Audience:We're here daily, god. What else are you guys doing during?
Joshua Gilliland:just this one. Just this one. We will be pitching San Diego downtown. Some of us are going to Japan for a celebration, so you can see us there. We are not presented, but we will be there. And there are some of the smaller shows. We'll be in for Fan Expo San Francisco and we're also looking at Bay Pong over the 4th of July weekend. Other questions.
Audience:Let's go down to hands. Thank you, yes, sir, for Treasure Trove. Who would have a?
Stephen Tollafield:superior claim of interest in Treasure Trove's found, someone who found it or the issue its successors and sign of the original owner.
Joshua Gilliland:Do you want to handle it?
Katrina Wraight:I think it's. Yeah, there'd be finders, keepers on that one, as it was in original English and common law. The passing it down to heirs and assigns is more for the real property, although it can apply to the personal property, but for that specific circumstance of the coins and currency it has that little special rule because the English crown wanted to be able to take all the things that we're not there.
