Ghostbusters Law of the Afterlife at Bay Con!

Recorded live at Bay Con 2025 in Santa Clara, CA! Join Josh Gilliland for his analysis of the Ghostbusters film series. From the panel description:

Who you gonna call… when the Ghostbusters get sued? From ghost containment ethics to property damage caused by proton packs, the Ghostbusters franchise is full of supernatural shenanigans that raise real-world legal questions. Could trapping a ghost be considered false imprisonment? What environmental laws apply to a ghost containment unit? And was animating the Statue of Liberty a legal nightmare?
Join The Legal Geeks as they break down the law of the afterlife with a panel of judges and attorneys. Using their legal expertise (and maybe a P.K.E. meter or two), they’ll explore the weird, wild, and surprisingly complex legal issues in the Ghostbusters universe. Don't miss this electrifying discussion—just be careful not to cross the streams!

Chapters

• 0:00 Ghostbusters Nostalgia and Legacy
• 8:42 Is Ghost Capture False Imprisonment?
• 19:06 Personhood of Ghosts and Legal Boundaries
• 28:44 Vinkman's Creepy Behavior and Bad Ethics
• 39:28 EPA, Containment Unit, and Liability
• 52:38 Suing Ivo Shandor's Estate
• 1:00:06 Stay Puft Man and Ray's Liability
• 1:05:09 Haunted Houses and Legal Recognition

Transcript

Joshua Gilliland: 0:00

When Ghostbusters came out in 1984, it was the number one movie in the world for my brother's birthday in June. It was the number one movie in the world for my birthday in September. Only time that's happened. When I turned 10, over 40 years ago, it was the number one movie, and I'm now 50, and we live in this wonderful age where we keep getting Ghostbusters movies and there's going to be an animated series on Netflix soon and I used to do a Saturday morning cartoon, yep. So again, we live in this great era that the nerds are in charge, we are writing content, we're the decision makers, and so Gen X is kind of in charge it right now and at least for probably another decade before our generation starts retiring. And it's like here we are. Yeah, it's like it's not revenge. We're in charge now and it's like here we are. Yeah, it's like it's not revenge. We're in charge now, like it's worth. You know, back in the day when saying I, like Doctor who, was publicly saying I spend Friday nights home alone, and now we're the ones in charge and we're the ones making things that are popular, and I am grateful for this era and that is just so cool that that's outside.

Joshua Gilliland: 1:32

So I have a blog and podcast called the Legal Geeks, and this is where we go to cons. We podcast, we blog, and one of the earliest posts I did was is it false imprisonment to capture a ghost? So the Ghostbusters are running around capturing ghosts. Is this false imprisonment? And the answer is possibly not. And let's get into that In New York, because we're talking about New York law being in here, let's use New York law to discuss this. So first thing we do is what's the law say? So that way, it's not just some esoteric discussion about capturing the ghost. We need to know the rule first. So New York law states a person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree when he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury, and a person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person. Okay, so we've got the foundation here.

Joshua Gilliland: 2:45

What happens when you capture a ghost? Well, we have to define what's a person. So a person means a human being and, where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality. Well, what's a ghost? Does a ghost count as a person? And that gets into the issue of does personhood continue after death? And the issue whether a non-human animal has a fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus is profound and far-reaching. It speaks to our relationship with all life around us. Ultimately, we'd not be able to ignore it.

Joshua Gilliland: 3:36

While it may be arguable that a chimpanzee is not a person, there is no doubt that is not merely a thing is no doubt that is not merely a thing. There have been some animal rights cases arguing whether or not like, say, orcas in captivity could have a lawsuit brought on their behalf saying that their rights are being violated. And when they that's been tried as saying like, are orcas same rights as having people for standing, that case was no, okay. But the issue of like with this chimpanzee, it's like oh, this is like. It's weird because it's not quite the same. But are you dealing with something that should have rights? We don't want a monkey getting zapped, okay, it's just, what kind of society do we want? Do you want so like? We have laws that prevent animal abuse, all right.

Joshua Gilliland: 4:34

How do you apply that to a ghost? And the original Ghostbusters movies? The ghosts don't seem human anymore. Slimer doesn't look like a human being. It looks like a flying potato, that's green, that's eating things. That's not again calling animal control for an animal running around seems like the appropriate thing to do when you have coyotes in the neighborhood. The Ghostbusters Frozen Empire, where we have a ghost that still retained her humanity and is walking around interacting and playing chess that still sounds like a person acting and playing chess that still sounds like a person and having a discussion with Phoebe Spengler like they're actually talking. This isn't just like a weird haunting of something that seems demonic in nature. So the law has this wonderful concept called it depends and it might depend. So capturing Slimer and putting Slimer in the containment unit I don't think is false imprisonment.

Joshua Gilliland: 5:58

Capturing a ghost that still seems human could tip in the other direction, because it's going to be very hard to have an interview with Slimer. Slimer is just living his best life, wanting snacks. Okay, that sounds more like an animal. On the flip side, if you're playing chess with a ghost, that doesn't sound like something you're going to take a proton pack to, and if you do, you're going to feel weird about it. And if you feel weird about it, that means this is probably the wrong thing to be doing Now if the ghost was raising hell and breaking things and things are flying around again, it's sounding non-human. Capturing that makes more sense and something we're going to be more comfortable with.

Joshua Gilliland: 6:54

If the ghost presents as a decomposed body that's terrorizing others, that doesn't sound like it's retained its humanity. That doesn't sound like it's retained its humanity. So again, it's a very uncomfortable, weird discussion to get into of is it still human, making it a person? So, re-watching Ghostbusters from 1984, I can say with all honesty Vinkman's a creep, this has not aged well at all. I can say with all honesty, vinkman's a creep, this has not aged well at all. I don't know how much of it was. It was not aging well last night too. You watch it. It's like whoa, whoa, whoa. Was this just improv, gone wrong? I don't know.

Joshua Gilliland: 7:42

But Vkman as a college professor hidden on the lady coeds is not okay. Torturing the male student is also super not okay and he's like getting paid five bucks, which in 1984 money might be more like $45 today, maybe $30. I haven't run the index calculator, but that's a little amount of money. To be zapping somebody in order to impress a, say, 19 or 20-year-old college student. The psychology department would not be student? No, no, you are. There's issues of like torture of the student that you're just zapping, who actually does seem to be presenting real psychic abilities to identify three wavy lines and just trying to seduce a co-ed. Like it is not okay. You're going to subject the school to liability.

Joshua Gilliland: 8:52

And so vinkman is a creep. What he does to sigourney weaver's character is full-on stalking and creepy behavior and it makes it hard to watch the original movie. Knowing what I know now as a 50 year old man. Going like this is absolutely not okay. But that continues. So you're not a good friend if you're convincing your buddy to get an extremely unfavorable mortgage rate on a loan for the house that he was born in. It's what his parents left him and this is how you're going to fund your startup getting a 19% interest rate on a third mortgage. He doesn't even try to talk him down and Ray's going like dude, dude, like this is absolutely again, it sounds funny in the moment watching it because you laugh. It's like 19% and he didn't even negotiate, ha ha ha. And then you think about it Dude, not cool. Like you have a highly speculative startup company to hunt ghosts and you might be destroying your buddy's life in the process if it doesn't work out. Now there's also a concept in the law called usury on that puts caps on interest rates. So in New York the maximum rate for for an interest rate is 16%. Okay, so the fact that in 1984 the rate was 19% sounds grotesque by today's standards, because that would probably be like 30. Just something really offensive. So, again, find another way. Or maybe don't let Vinkman be the one to negotiate.

Joshua Gilliland: 11:01

And again, how much of this is just Bill Murray doing improv? Yes, sir, this might be a good lesson in general. Whenever somebody you know comes to you that has a short thing and wants to invest, they're almost always full of your face. I have friends and family that fall for that Because, again, being in Silicon Valley where we write deals on cocktail napkins, and, yeah, there are a lot of success stories of people making billions and having nice houses in Atherton and Portola Valley, and then there are a lot of them that end horribly as well. So this is, again, it's super uncomfortable. I don't know if this was the intent or if they just thought it seemed funny in the moment, but when you actually think about it, it's not. And again, it's more disturbing behavior from Vinkman, which is just throughout the first movie. It pivots in the second movie and so in the following films there's a good arc for him at least.

Joshua Gilliland: 12:04

So the main thrust from the original Ghostbusters is the federal government's the bad guy, and specifically the EPA. Because Walter Peck comes in wanting to first inspect the Ghostbusters containment unit and Venkman is antagonistic to him with like did you use the magic word? Now, as an attorney, I absolutely would not want a client just letting the feds in without a warrant of some kind, without some paperwork. But they did make nuclear accelerators that are backpacks that are absolutely not regulated. There's a public safety issue with having people walking around with a nuclear accelerator on their back that they didn't test until taking it into trapping a ghost. Yeah, but they did. But again this raises the issue how do you even get that licensed? And again, this is why lawyers exist, because an environmental lawyer would need to figure out how do we navigate this, because this is funky, it's complicated. I don't have an answer for it because I don't do this type of law, but you would need to sit down and figure out how do we do this so we don't create an environmental mess by having one of those things go critical in New York City. So what would again not a scientist, but what would happen if you had that thing breach in some way? So there's actually case law that cites the Ghostbusters. So this quote is actually from a lawsuit in 1988.

Joshua Gilliland: 13:48

Because judges also go to the movies. They're people too. I have a lot of friends who are judges and this will shock you. They have hobbies. They don't live in a monastery. They too go to the movies. They too go to cons movies. They too go to cons like this, because this will also be surprising People who grew up reading comic books and now have the title of your Honor. There's a lot of them. They also enjoy pop culture. They like thinking about deep issues. The kids who are running around to make cosplay of complex characters. They will grow up and be attorneys and judges or congressmen or governors. So again, I take comfort going like that. That kid that made that Starscream cosplay watch her, she'll go far. That kid that made that Starscream cosplay watch her, she'll go far. Good, we need that. I have a really good close friend who is a federal judge who will DM his kids Dungeons and Dragons games. I call him if I have to do that with my scouts. So again, this wonderful quote. Movie goers will remember the environmental police in the movie Ghostbusters would be surprised.

Joshua Gilliland: 15:24

The practice of allowing the target of an administrative warrant to forbid entry and thereby convert the warrant proceeding into a contempt proceeding is the standard method of enforcing such warrants. So the way that the breach scene could have played out was no, let's go before a judge and we're going to settle this that way, as opposed to we're going to turn it off based upon your order to do so, without even knowing what effect this might have. I think, what if we said that and the thing exploded? Well, it does explode. It explodes and kills people, as opposed to letting things out and thus also bringing about the end of the world situation. So again, let's go before a judge and they can have an evidentiary hearing and we can figure this out together, because we have systems in place to avoid things blowing up.

Joshua Gilliland: 16:20

So, which brings us to the breach of the containment unit. Who is liable for the damage due to the breach of the containment unit? Who is liable for the damage due to the shutdown of the containment system at Ghostbusters HQ? Again, I, good friend, who was a judge in New York City. He would go by the firehouse and times I visited like we didn't have time to go do that together. But again, this is something people in New York could go. Do they now have Ghostbusters Day for the anniversary of the movie release that they've tried turning into like a May the 4th or a Star Trek Day type celebration for Ghostbusters fans? The director, some of the cast were hanging out there. A whole bunch of people in Ghostbusters attire were at the firehouse just last month.

Joshua Gilliland: 17:09

So breach of the containment system and liability, all right, it was the Con Ed electrician negligent shutting down the containment system. The Con Ed supervisor admits I don't even know what this does. Con Ed supervisor admits I don't even know what this does. And so he gets the unfortunate position of I'm just following orders by the police officer who's being told by a federal agent to do this. That raises all kinds of weird jurisdictional issues because you have the federal government, you have NYPD and you have Con Ed. Who's in charge here? Who's going to be liable? Who are the deep pockets? We know who are not the deep pockets and that's the Ghostbusters.

Joshua Gilliland: 18:00

But do you go after them for negligence Negligence per se, which means they're negligent because they didn't follow the law. Is there strict liability in operating the ghost containment unit, which is highly experimental and it also raises a super fun type problem? So for them, what laws could have been at play? And there are a variety of nuclear regulatory laws that you could get into saying that there's negligence on their part. But it was working until PEC said shut it down. So do you get it worked until the feds intervened? So again problem the United States government. Suing the federal government is hard because there's sovereign immunity. And the way you get through sovereign immunity is the federal government says there are times that you can sue us and that's through the federal tort claims act. Does the federal tort claims act apply in this situation? Apply in the situation? So the United States stands in the shoes of its employee whose negligence or wrongful acts in the course and scope of their employment caused the plaintiffs injury. There's all kinds of steps that need to be followed in order to get to that level of a waiver of being able to sue the federal government, in this case because of walter peck's interference and getting them to shut down the containment unit.

Joshua Gilliland: 19:35

I don't know if it would work. There would be a lot of motion practice, slugging it out to say like was peck unreasonable? I don't think peck's unreasonable in wanting to make sure that there's a safe facility in the heart of New York City. I do think Peck becomes unreasonable in saying shut it down. I kind of wondered if it was entirely because of Bankman's response to him and so Peck just decided, decided to be busy about it. Yeah, and that's probably the answer here of two wrongs. Don't make a right. Okay, it's like okay, so you're going to cut off your nose to spite your own face situation. And that's what's happened here, because they turned into jerks to each other. As opposed to no adult was in the room. And again, if Ray had been there or Spangler, could this have played out differently, as opposed to having Venkman as your point person who hits on college co-eds and doesn't even bother negotiating a 19% interest rate on his buddy's mortgage, third mortgage. So again, not the ambassador that you want.

Joshua Gilliland: 20:55

What about New York City? This gets weird because you have different sovereigns at play. You know you have the federal government bossing around, the New York City Police Department telling Con Ed to shut it down. So again, this is a mixed bag. It's also not how government's supposed to work. You know the feds generally don't tell local government what to do in enforcing a federal policy Like this is why people are fighting about, you know, immigration cases of immigration exclusively federal.

Joshua Gilliland: 21:37

So the idea of saying, hey, I want the local police department to enforce something that's exclusively federal becomes problematic very quickly. Because think back a decade ago when Arizona started enacting an immigration law of their own, trying to pull people over to prove citizenship. On whether or not the state of Arizona is claiming we want to get rid of people who are not here legally, and that went to the Supreme Court and it was this is exclusively federal, not a matter for the states. So what happens here? So I think if I were suing on behalf of people who had property damage, you name everybody as a defendant. Okay, because even the Ghostbusters, even with the people with the small checkbooks, because you want to get everyone Looking at, there's litigation going on right now because of the fires in LA, and and you have insurance companies that have started lawsuits, you have plaintiffs that have started lawsuits and they're going after the public utilities, and so that's just. It's ongoing. And so again it's like, who did you sue? And the answer might be everybody that you have a good faith belief was responsible and the shutting down the containment unit. Everybody is a good answer. For starters.

Joshua Gilliland: 23:19

So Evo Shandor built the house that Dana lived in. That is this radio beacon for Gozer. Can you sue his estate for doing that? Because without Shandor building this temple on top of a high rise, you would not have had the Gozer incident of 1984, which means you're suing a dead man, and the way you sue a dead man is the estate. Now, is this estate truly liquidated with nothing left in it, or is there still, like a foundation that has money in it from what Shandor did and you'd want to do some discovery?

Joshua Gilliland: 24:15

But I think it's worth looking at for being able to go like this crazy dude did this? Are they still collecting money in any way? Do they have assets in any way? Because if there's assets, go for it. You also have the entire building itself. Who owns that right now? Is this like a toxic tort case that you're suing everyone who's touched the property and again you'd have subsequent owners. That you're suing everyone who's touched the property and again you'd have subsequent owners who didn't know about the Gozer Temple at the top. So again they have a really good defense of like whoa, but again people who end up buying property that has toxic waste on it, like runoff from, oh, dry cleaners or you know Silicon Valley has all of the semiconductor business and all that runoff that went to Alviso and is why the mud in Alviso is contaminated. You have that of like you can't go clean that up easily. That would cost. Yep, yeah, it's so. Again, that attaches to the land and thus if you end up in a lawsuit you start looking at every insurance policy that is attached to that land over 80 years to like when the contamination began. It gets complicated, it gets weird.

Joshua Gilliland: 25:58

Not my area, but could that sort of strategy work in going after, say, ivo Shandor's estate or say the property owner itself? I don't know, we don't have a lot of background on it, but we do know from afterlife that Shandor in, but we do know from Afterlife that Shandor in Oklahoma built a town and his name's all over the place. So is this like the Carnegie's or the Rockefeller's? Is there still a family estate with money to go after? Yes, sir, this is a very, very common question. It's not. Can you sue or are you going to recover? Anybody can sue for anything, right? Yeah, you want to get past a motion to dismiss. Can you successfully sue, is the question.

Joshua Gilliland: 26:46

I don't know if this would work because I don't have enough facts to actually dig into this and do the analysis. I can spot the issue from the movie and go. No writer was thinking about me as a lawyer wanting to do this, and thus they give me enough facts and canon that I can play with. But it's still fun. Now the other one is Ray, liable for choosing the form of the traveler, and the answer's the traveler, and the answer is a maybe Because the others.

Joshua Gilliland: 27:28

You didn't do it on purpose, but there wasn't a giant J Edgar Hoover, which was the example that Vinkman throws out of. Like you know, choose your destroyer. And it's like, oh, if we think of a giant J Edgar Hoover, j Edgar Hoover's going to appear, that doesn't happen. So, like everyone's able to clear their heads, and it's, you know, ray, thinking about being a child, you know, by the campfire and Mr Staypuff, and again, it is one of the best moments in cinematic history. I saw the panels with the special effects team on how they did it and that was very cool on those guys, on what they did and how they were honored for decades Because the guy who made the costume got to be in it. So again he was very happy and so it's just all this fun stuff. But Ray might have some liability here.

Joshua Gilliland: 28:34

But you then get into the issue of like is this foreseeable harm? Well, they know from past experience that the Travelers appeared before. So again there could be an argument. There is some foreseeability and there was known risk that something could show up, something from our imagination if we inadvertently pick our own destroyer, if we inadvertently pick our own destroyer. So Ray picking the Stay Puft man as the traveler, I think there are defenses If that ever. I wouldn't want that to get out. The only people who know are the Ghostbusters, because they were the only ones at the top of the building, so they can control the narrative and I wanted to admit that part. You know it's like you could control. A lot was happening, you know, and all of a sudden they picked the Stay Puft man from my mind. And here we are. It's like you don't need to say I was told I could pick the traveler, because if you admit that, I think things get very bad. If it's, I don't know what happened. Leave that alone. People are really freaked out.

Joshua Gilliland: 29:52

All right, so does the law recognize the existence of ghosts, true or false? Who said false, okay, okay. So, those of you who said false, you are correct. The I learned about it in property, so it's 1991. And some folks buy a house and it's not disclosed that and you know the court saying like, yeah, casper's actually there, it's. The prior owners didn't disclose the fact that we've had TV shows here. We're, like, known in the community because of being a haunted house. We're known in the community because of being a haunted house and this is from the opinion.

Joshua Gilliland: 31:03

Plaintiff, to his horror, discovered that the house he had recently contracted to purchase was widely reputed to be possessed by poltergeists, reportedly seen by defendants, sellers and members of her family on numerous occasions over the last nine years, like if the walls are bleeding and the cat's flying through the air. You know, and you're calling TV shows and you're on the news, like that transcends into. You're going to need to disclose that. And then when somebody moves in, it's like, oh, we're now dealing with weird things that are happening. This court said, yeah, this house, as a matter of law, is haunted, and that was one of the coolest parts of my first year of law school. There was a wild Rip Warren class getting into. You know we get to talk about ghosts, you know. Thank you, professor Coletta. All right, if there's a death in the house, you have to Disclose that. Disclose it to the virus. Yes, sir, disclose that. Yes, sir. Audience MEMBER 1 If one court, let's say San Francisco, or a county judge, recognized ghosts in the case, do other counties or states have to respect that kind of judgment?

Joshua Gilliland: 32:32

No, so this gets into the issue of that's an East Coast opinion. I don't know if there's any California cases that have said that, and just because it's stated in, I want to say Pennsylvania I think that was Pennsylvania. I could be wrong something like we don't need a lawyer to buy a house in California, like the other 49 states, you're not going to just buy a house without a lawyer. So we use, you know, realtors who are doing quasi-law. Other states go, that's crazy talk and here we are. So every case is different and you could try that argument. It could be persuasive but it's not binding.

Joshua Gilliland: 33:25

If you come in and you've got GoPro footage of the wall starting to bleed, portal to the nether realm opens up, probably it's like, okay, we're going to talk about AI now and go like, is this special effects? And you're going to have expert witnesses? Because there are people who are getting terrifying footage on their cell phone cameras of things that don't make sense. And then you have people analyzing the video going like there's nothing there that should be casting that shadow. Or they figure out what it is and debunk it. Because most investigators start with debunking whether it's UFO or paranormal, that they want it to be credible, which means they need to figure out if there's a way to debunk it, and so they ask the hard questions and then when they go like, yeah, we can't explain this, that's when everyone gets kind of uncomfortable.

Joshua Gilliland: 34:29

All right, so Ghostbusters 2 has a courtroom scene, so I'd be remiss not to talk about the courtroom scene. So they're in court because they're violating a restraining order, willful destruction of public property, fraud and malicious mischief. For those who don't remember, ghostbusters 2 begins with the Ghostbusters being blamed for the New York incident and so there's a restraining order saying they, like they can't go out, do ghost-busting activities. So that's why we have some doing birthday parties and we've got Vinkman doing his TV show and Spangler's doing psychological torture experiments with a child with now take away the puppy. So like their lives have changed. So like their lives have changed. But when there's issues with Dana's kid, they answer the call and they end up tearing up part of a New York street, which is something public people aren't supposed to do. You just don't go play con ed and tear up a chunk of street and then get involved with a supernatural incident. So they end up in court.

Joshua Gilliland: 35:41

All right, this is Little Lawyer in Lessons. This is out of Malway's book on trial presentations and what lawyers should do. Now there are those who don't like Malway and, like some of the other authors, I like Malway, All right. So what goes into an opening statement? You tell the trier of fact whether it's the jury, the judge, your themes, you present your case from your point of view. The opening statement can only refer to anticipated evidence and that evidence must be admissible.

Joshua Gilliland: 36:13

You need to know the law that you're talking about. You need to know the judge's perspective. So doing homework on the judge is important. You need to know how to choose and use themes to send an emotional message and you need to engage in storytelling. And court TV is popular. I don't watch it because I want to yell at the screen. Also, when I'm not playing lawyer in real life, I don't watch lawyer stuff. I will watch Star Trek or a Star Wars show or a Ghostbusters show or Jurassic Park, something that's fun. So when family members start giving me lawyer books for Christmas, it's like I don't give you books about what you do at work. It's hurtful. Don't give you books about what you do at work. It's hurtful. Anyhoo, all right.

Joshua Gilliland: 37:03

So what goes into the content of an effective opening statement? You need to get the judge's attention. You need to show your position. You need to anchor facts and issues to memorable themes and labels. Again coming up with little mantras of again there are all kinds of examples, but again you want a little mantra that people remember of like explain it to me, like I'm a five year old, like that you know. Again the famous one and I hate it. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Hate that, but again, it's a memorable line that people can identify. Remember like a commercial. You remember it.

Joshua Gilliland: 37:49

You want to create a preference for your position with the jury or the judge? Alright, you want to deliver it in a positive attitude. You want to look comfortable. You don't want to deliver it in a positive attitude. You want to look comfortable. You don't want to show up in a rumpled suit. You want to look good. You want to be on your A game and you don't want to look like you just rolled out of bed. You don't want to look like it's the paper chase. You want to be calm, poised, collected and make your point effectively.

Joshua Gilliland: 38:22

And also this radical thing that lawyers do, we do practice. It's like a performance. We actually have to practice complex words, complex names and go like, hey, what sounds better? That's why we have war rooms Like last summer. This time last year we were getting ready for trial and we were going through things. We were practicing. What exhibits do we want to show to convince the jury of our position? What are the buzzwords that we like? And we were practicing different deliveries for that.

Joshua Gilliland: 39:03

So let's talk about Louis Tully's opening statement. It's short but pointless. Just think back. He shows up and he's rambling. He talks about getting turned into a dog and these guys saved me and here I am. And then sits down and it's like okay. And it's Spangler says like short but pointless. It's like it's not good. So we get Venkman on the stand and you have the witness leading the lawyer. That also doesn't happen. You know you can't ask leading questions of the witness, and in this we have the lawyer being a puppet of Venkman and it doesn't go well. Like this is everything a lawyer should not do in court. Lewis Telly does All right.

Joshua Gilliland: 39:56

So we have ghosts appear. They're the Scolari brothers and they kidnap the DA, and so this raises the issue is that cause to dismiss the criminal charges against the Ghostbusters? And the answer is a strong no. Like that doesn't resolve the issue. However, it should be cause to dismiss the judicial restraining order prohibiting the paranormal investigations and eliminations. Yeah, that seems like a reasonable thing for what's going on. It's like the DA floats away, hanging upside down by her ankle. Two guys who were executed are flying around the courtroom. I think we're good. Get rid of that restraining order.

Joshua Gilliland: 40:42

So now lawyers need to be competent, and there's an issue about you have a tax attorney who's giving legal representation to the Ghostbusters. Lawyers should only provide competent representation. So, like I've done civil litigation, it's people suing people. When you're a lawyer, you get family members and friends asking you bizarre legal advice and it's not in your wheelhouse, and so when somebody's asked me for, say, family law advice about getting a divorce, I don't do that, like that is not my area and I will refer them to friends who do family law. Or if there's a somebody asked a really complex IP intellectual property question, not my bag Brought in, connected them with a friend who does IP law because he's really good at IP law and so he can help and help them figure out their issue. But there are emergency situations where a tax attorney could give criminal defense advice if it's an emergency and this emergency situation can apply with something bad's just happened and the family member or friend needs immediate help figuring out what to do, and it's okay. And so this is the ABA model rules and we'll read it. So we have it right.

Joshua Gilliland: 42:24

In an emergency, a lawyer may give assistance or advice in a matter in which lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required, where referral to or consultation or association with another lawyer would be impractical. Even in an emergency, however, assistance should be limited to that reasonably necessary in the circumstances, for ill-considered action under emergency conditions can jeopardize the client's interests. So you've got to be careful. Like again if somebody called me and said I was just in an auto crash and I'm being arrested. What should I do? I'm not a criminal defense attorney. My advice would be say nothing and say that you're exercising your right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, because that should shut down all questioning by law enforcement and that should get you a public defender at your side very quickly. But don't blow it by talking, and that would be the advice. Shut up and demand a lawyer and it's not me, because I don't do that.

Joshua Gilliland: 43:36

So let's take the Statue of Liberty on a joyride to stop Vigo, the Carpathian. So generally, you shouldn't deputize a national monument and take it into combat. That's just something that we don't do. But there's something called the necessity defense and that says we're gonna have to break the law to stop a greater harm. So if that greater harm is eternal darkness and dogs and cats sleeping together and end of the world type situation and we have the happy slime that we're going to use to rally people on New Year's Eve to stop the end of the world, cool, we're going to do that. We are knowingly breaking the law by taking the Statute of Liberty out on a walk, but it's the only thing we can do to stop immediate harm and it has to be immediate. So the necessity defense doesn't work. Of my truck was stuck in the mud and I'm an American male so I'm going to go steal a tractor in order to pull my truck to safety. Nope, that's not the necessity defense. But if there's a child stuck in the car and it's sinking, people are going to be like, okay, you saved the kid, fine, similar here. So again they're defendable.

Joshua Gilliland: 45:17

But we actually see a reference to this in Frozen Empire. They use the term, they say something negative about the Statue of Liberty, ignoring the part about saving the world. So there's a lot of blame the hero and ignore the villain type situation, which is again, it's like a form of victim blaming. It's like you all were going to die. We stopped you all from dying and you're blaming us for the property damage from us keeping you alive. So again, in defense of others is a little different, it has to be. So pick another pop culture reference that's also 40 years old this year, Back to the future. So George McFly stops his future wife from being assaulted. George was not in any danger. He could have just turned around and walked away and let Elaine have something truly horrible happen. And he says, nope, if you get your goddamn hands off her Hero moment. Very cool, audience cheers. Defense of others that's effective defense of others. There has to be harm, and so you want to avoid the trolley car analysis of, hey, the trolley car is crashing down the street and the only way to stop the trolley from crashing and all these people dying is I shoot someone and use them as a brake. That's not okay. All right, okay, all right.

Joshua Gilliland: 47:30

Let's touch on the 2016 Ghostbusters, which highlights the importance of representation matters. I was, you know, I'm a white boy. I was 9 to 10 years old when Ghostbusters comes out. Three of the Ghostbusters look like me. I feel represented 2016,. The all-female Ghostbusters come out and there's beautiful footage of little girls in Ghostbusters attire interacting with the cast, and it's freaking adorable. And it highlights the importance of having characters that have representation, because if everything is just like we're just gonna have white dudes in this, you're ignoring a significant part of the population, and so being able to go let's make it look like society is a good thing. So, with that aside, I had a lot of problems with the storytelling in this movie because it's like improv throughout it and we have Bill Murray's cameo where he's a ghost investigator, debunker and our heroes have their first ghost that they've captured and he shows up and he's challenging them and to prove that they actually caught the ghost, they let the ghost out and it kills Bill Murray.

Joshua Gilliland: 48:50

That's manslaughter and like it's done as a joke, like it's like. I watched it, I was like this is absolutely not funny. It's like reckless disregard for human life because she was getting her feelings hurt. It's like lazy writing, just dumb, and that would be arguably second-degree manslaughter, which is a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when they recklessly cause the death of another person. Criminally negligent homicide. Is a person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person. They could be on the hook for both. Like there would be a trial about that of you. Let out an inherently dangerous spirit and it immediately kills a guy, flies out the window, crashes in. You know it's like no. So again, beautiful intent, horrible delivery, all right.

Joshua Gilliland: 49:51

We now get to afterlife and we find out when Spengler dies. He dies in debt and so there are issues with his daughter being able to get property from him. But does she inherit the debts? And the answer is no, you don't get. You don't. If dad dies and dad's in debt, you don't. The debt doesn't transfer to the firstborn. However, dad's estate might have to be used to pay off the debts and thus the kids get little to nothing after the payoff.

Joshua Gilliland: 50:34

Now the question is can a dead person be put through bankruptcy? Because if he was alive, it's like, hey, this is a matter through bankruptcy. Because if he was alive, it's like, hey, this is a matter for bankruptcy because he's completely underwater. You can't put a dead person through bankruptcy. The law does not allow that. So only a person that resides or has a domiciled or a place of business may be a debtor under this title. So if you have a family, I learned this the hard way with a family member who died completely underwater and was like he should have gone through bankruptcy while alive because it was a train wreck to deal with and with debts far exceeding assets. It was a very complicated probate.

Joshua Gilliland: 51:25

So we have grandson Trevor figures out how to start the Echo One with the help of his ghost grandfather, and he takes the Echo One on a joy ride. He's not yet 16, but he's still 16. I think he's 15 in it, but he doesn't have a driver's license. So in Oklahoma, where this scene takes place is no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon public roads without having a valid driver's license. Okay, he's driving through fields, he does get on the road and he does go through town. So, yeah, he drove a car where he shouldn't. So in Oklahoma this is a misdemeanor and it's punishable by a fine of not less than $50, nor more than $300 plus cost, by any imprisonment for not more than 30 days. So he could get into trouble. If there's property damage, mom could get into trouble and be on the hook for that.

Joshua Gilliland: 52:28

But we'll talk about parental liability in a moment. Now it's neat having the cool summer school teacher, but when the cool summer school teacher takes out a ghost trap and he thinks it's a real ghost trap and there might be a ghost in it and the answer is like let's open it and see what happens, I think that's gross negligence and it's not in the course of his employment. So I don't think the school is going to, I think they will cut him loose. For you know, you released a spirit that blew out all these windows on buses and did all this other damage because you let this thing out, and you did this in want of slight care and diligence. So, because there are different levels of negligence, I do think this transfers to reckless disregard. And you're also encouraging minor children to engage in this conduct as well, arguably endangering the kids. So, again, not not a responsible adult, because if it's, if it's real, let's not mess with it. You found this where, so your grandfather hid it before he died and he's now communicated with you beyond the grave making sure it's protected, and you bring it to me. Let's open this baby and see what happens. So, again, it's dumb decision making for plot, because without plot the story doesn't happen. If everyone's a reasonably prudent person in the story, it's a very boring story.

Joshua Gilliland: 54:12

All right, let's talk about parental liability, and this varies across state to state. So parents can be legally responsible for damages caused by their kids. There are some states that say no, parents don't get any liability, and there are states that have said there can be parental liability but it's going to be capped at $500 or $5,000 or $2,000 or $25,000. California actually has a really high number if a junior makes a boo-boo and parents can get sued for what the kid did. So in the beginning of Frozen Empire.

Joshua Gilliland: 54:54

We have the next generation of Ghostbusters of Spangler's daughter, her, either boyfriend or husband it's not quite clear if they've married or not and her kids, one's 18, one's not. And so we have Hero Girl, who is hanging out of a moving vehicle firing her proton pack at a ghost flying through New York City and she is shooting brooks off of buildings. There's all these things that are happening, and so New York law says that the parent of a child they use the word infant, but they're using it to say somebody under the age of 18, but over 10 years old shall be liable for damages caused by that child if that kid has willfully, maliciously or unlawfully damaged, defaced or destroyed such public or private property, whether real or personal, personal. She's opening fire and they're not. The Ghostbusters aren't employed by the city. They're like their status is nebulous. They seem to be like a non-profit running around capturing ghosts, not charging people, meaning that Winston is the deep pocket here funding this and you have law enforcement going like don't worry about it, ghostbusters are on it. That's all weird because there's no. It's like this is like Avengers territory, like they're not operating under the auspices of law enforcement. They're just driving around recklessly firing weapons to capture ghosts and there's.

Joshua Gilliland: 56:51

Are they insured? How are they insured? How is this all working? So when they get brought before the mayor, he rattles off some damage numbers. So there are three lampposts that have been destroyed Lampposts in New York City. Including installation. The cost to replace those would be about $2,000 to $3,000 each. So let's just say, out of the gate, that's $9,000 just for the lamp post replacement. You have two parked Priuses that get destroyed in this 2023 Prius is worth $28,000. So we're looking at just under $60,000 worth of Prius.

Joshua Gilliland: 57:32

Right there you have a fleet of rental bikes. I didn't count the rental bikes, but let's just say that if there's 10 of them, that's $1,200 per bike. So multiply that by 10 and you got the bike coverage. But then you get the issue of building damage. Masonry work can range from 40 to $100 per hour for labor with stacking brick repair can be, you know, 1000 to $3500. Or if it's like really big facade repairs, that could be up to like $30,000 to a million. So again, the property damage. In this we would need expert witnesses to watch the scene and figure out like a cost of repair bid for what this would all cost. But it's up there with what happened to him. So again, that could be going after mom. Or the fact that they're doing it as the Ghostbusters, as opposed to Phoebe acting on her own, could mean that the Ghostbusters are just on the hook for this. But Phoebe also then goes out and blows out like does property damage at a diner. That's all Phoebe's doing and the cost of that could just go right to mom Because she's like 14 in this, 15.

Joshua Gilliland: 59:03

All right, you also have the endangering, the welfare of a child. Okay, she's cool action girl, we like that. And she says fun, spunky things. So again, we like that. However, mom's taking the kid to work to fight ghosts. Child endangerment in New York says if someone knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical welfare of a child, or if there's a substantial risk or danger to the child's life or being a parent, they're charged with the care of a child less than 18 years of age. They're charged with the care of a child less than 18 years of age if they fail or refuse to exercise reasonable diligence and the control of such child to prevent them from becoming a person in need of supervision like they could. You know phase 10, 3 or 7 of 7. There are different acts in in New York Family Court. So again they could be breaking the law and causing child endangerment because the kid's hanging out of a gunner seat of a car that's driving an exhibition of speed, not following any laws, and she's firing a nuclear accelerator at a ghost.

Joshua Gilliland: 1:00:23

Is it cool? Yes, do you want to argue? Your honor, it was cool. No, I mean like I'm like you're just arguing for jury nullification at that point of yeah, we know it was wrong, but it was awesome. That's yeah, it's like your honor. Look at all the good we did. It's like. It's like we'll look cool. Your Honor, right? Yeah, it's like your Honor. Look at all the good we did. It's like it's only, like you know, $3 million worth of damage. It was awesome. You know they're not going to be happy with that. So, with that, lots of fun.

Joshua Gilliland: 1:00:59

You can find us on you know, our website, thelegalgeekscom. We're on social media, thelegalgeekscom. We're on social media, ranging from threads, tiktok, facebook and Instagram. Our podcast is where you listen to high quality podcasts, be it Apple podcast, amazon Music or Spotify or Podbean and a bunch of others, and we've got time for questions because they have us here for a long time so we can just hang out for a little bit and then go to another panel.

Joshua Gilliland: 1:01:27

So you were talking about the person code of the ghost, right, uh-huh? So in the very beginning it goes to one of the New York City libraries, yep, and they're going. You know the ghost lady? Yeah, so you can say, you know, does she has enough personhood? Oh, that's a tough one, it's such a good one. She was shooting them alive, but then she also exploded and tried to attack them. Yeah, that's a hard one because it's migrated, you know, because the first movie has ghosts just being scary and it's like go get her, ray. Like you know, grab her. That was your plan. And again, there are wonderful quotes from the first movie of I love this plan and I'm excited to be a part of it.

Joshua Gilliland: 1:02:23

But the idea is she I would say she's an intelligent haunting because there's agency there, but she doesn't speak and she's doing things that are, I think, damaging. Yeah, because there's. You know, you have the library cards flying out of the Dewey Decimal System for the card catalog. There are things that could be injurious to people and so that sounds dangerous, which would warrant, I think, capture. But if she's just hanging out down there going shush, then what's the threat other than scaring people to bejesus? But that's a thoughtful question because again it's like what's the status of the ghost? Others, others, others.

Joshua Gilliland: 1:03:28

So one of the things I really found interesting from Afterlife was Shandor's effectively suspended animation of some kind in his tomb and and then Gozer immediately rips him in half and kills him, and so it's just like that could have gotten really interesting. Was he dead? Was he a ghost Like? What category was he in? And figuring out what dark magic that had him looking like Lenin in a glass case waiting for Gozer's return. So again, it was just some fun, interesting ideas. Which one was that?

Joshua Gilliland: 1:04:18

Afterlife, yeah, yeah. When Gozer rises again, yeah. And when the kids are down there and they're looking at the four proton packs that grandpa left to fire upon and keep the end of the world from happening, he stirs, it looks like he takes a breath and turns his head. It's yeah. And his friend freaks out and starts screaming. He moved as anyone would. Yes, there would be screaming and running really fast. Yeah, again, it's a fun franchise they're doing well again. You see, the folks who have like are in those Ghostbuster fan clubs and they dress up and they go to community events and they visit six kids in a hospital. They do wonderful things. So, and it's again nice community. Other questions Okay, there is a fun what I think will be a fun 515 panel. So yeah, so I'll be here for a little while longer, but again, thank you all for attending and enjoy the rest of the show. Thank you Well.