Star Trek 60th: Celebrating the Law of the Genesis Trilogy

Recorded Live at SDCC on July 23, 2026!

The Star Trek films Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home all ask the question: How do you define victory in the no-win scenario? Lawyers face that question regularly when representing people in legal jeopardy. A panel of judges and lawyers examine legal issues from the "Genesis Trilogy," including the legality of the Genesis Device; whether the insanity defense applies to someone with a Ceti Alpha V eel wrapped around their cerebral cortex; whether the necessity defense applies to stealing the USS Enterprise; whether it is legal to park a Bird of Prey in Golden Gate Park; and whether you can violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act to save the planet. Featuring U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Chu (United States District Court for the Southern District of California), U.S. Magistrate Judge Stan Boone (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California), Judge Danna Nicholas (San Diego County Superior Court), Christine Peek (McManis Faulkner), Mark Zaid (Mark S. Zaid, P.C.), and Joshua Gilliland (Best Best & Krieger LLP; co-founder of The Legal Geeks). Moderated by Katrina Wraight (Best Best & Krieger LLP). Organized by The Legal Geeks.

Transcript

Welcome And Why Trek Matters

Katrina Wraight 0:00

Alright, well hello. Welcome. We the Legal Leagues are happy to be here with you at the St. Diego Homicon to celebrate Star Trek's 60th anniversary. So we've assembled an incredible crew of judges and lawyers for you today, so let's get started with introductions. To my left, we have the honorable Steve Chu, the honorable Stanley Moon, the honorable Judge Damon Nicholas, all of our judges in the room, and then attorneys Marce, Christy Lee, and Joshua Gillan.

Joshua Gilliland 0:51

Thank you. So dim the lights or uh easier to see. Star Trek means a lot to all of us, and it helps people through traumatic experiences. There are a lot of great stories about people that recovered the whole thing. For me, from February 21st, 1990 to March 18th, 1990, I was hospitalized from emergency to surgery because of Crohn's disease. I was misdiagnosed for five years. The doctor thought I was anorexic, and so I didn't declare it. I was not initial weight loss. It was a visual I wasn't dying. And two nights after yesterday's enterprise period, I was also the odds for dying were significantly higher than the limit. It was at the time. My godmother set of a very high card for the sister was a little forest and everything. So the godmother's sister called me voice consistent. And said, this young man's in the hospital. He spends his days recovering watching Rabbit on and Raiders in the loss. And he signed to get one card and sent it to me. Now, part of my motivation for getting ready was to get out and see the Hunter in October that aired or premiered March 6th, 1990. I did get to see it. But let's fast forward to 2009. So it's a year after I got to see Montana. Me voy spoke at a Lincoln conference. And I was in the first three rows and went up to go and shake his hand and just say, hey, thank you. When I was a kid, I knew he died, but he was going to get old heart, and I just wanted to say thank you. And since the needs of the many outlets are a few, I started to move away. Because there were 900 people behind me. His hand came down on my shoulder. So I know what it's like to get an old computer. He stopped me three times, he asked me a good question. He was gracious, he was sweet, and he was very humble and he said, I'm very glad. So Trek helps you. You don't have to go far to see anyone in a ICU or any other important situation of someone that we're recovering from. Because Trek is good and helping others recover from that.

Khan Exile And Genesis Dilemmas

Katrina Wraight 3:59

Mark, did Kurt violate the civil rights of Khan and his genetically enhanced superhumans by exiling volunteer?

Mark Zaid 4:08

Okay, so as everybody remembers, after Khan and the crew of the Botany Bay tried to take over and kill the crew of the Enterprise, they left them on Seti Alpha V. Now, Khan wasn't too upset about it. He was gonna rule in hell rather than serve in heaven, as his quote was. And then we come to learn that in Star Trek 2, Seti Alpha 6 explodes, and Seti Alpha V becomes this barren wasteland with this freaking little eel creature that will be talked about later. And obviously, a huge danger. It killed most of Khan's crew and his beloved wife, who was an original Enterprise crew member. So it's starting to think about it, reckless endangerment aspect, right? Think about you're in a fight with your boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse, and you kick her out of the car. Not while it's moving, you stop, then you put them out there. There's a big difference whether you left them at the shopping mall where they can call an Uber or a friend, versus a desolate highway in the Everglades where alligators are walking around. Now, in Maryland, where I'm from, it's not a crime in every jurisdiction. It may fit in different categories depending on the situation. But recklessly engage in conduct that creates a substantial, that would be a key word in any determination, risk of death or serious physical injury to another. So I guess if you just get a minor injury from someone who happens to be driving by, that might be okay in Maryland. And then other factors that will come into play would be: was there a conscious disregard, a gross deviation from other standards that might exist, uh, and again going back to the substantial risk. And there could be a misdemeanor in some jurisdictions, a felony in others. I started to think of the military mutiny, you know, back with Captain Bly in the 18th century, where they kicked off the crew and they left them, but they were inside of an island and they had food and they had water. But even then, the crew members who mutinied were court-martialed, and some of them were sentenced to death. As I finish on this, the one thing really that strikes me, I think, so I think they're fine. The crew of the enterprise is fine, not illegal in what they did. Someone should have probably visited uh in the course of the 15 years. I want to know more about the crew of the Reliant not realizing there was a missing planet in the solar system so they couldn't figure out which SETI Alpha Planet to go to. Someone told me it's it's answered in some book, but I'm only focused on Star Trek.

Steve Chu 7:01

That particular one? Well, there was one. There were a couple of con stories. We're gonna go down a rabbit all. But one question I had, I was waiting for Mark to yell. Maybe next time.

Katrina Wraight 7:17

Oh, but Joshua, let's discuss the legality of the channels.

Steve Chu 7:21

So this uh even in the 23rd century and the 24th century, you know, if we're going into the next generation, overpopulation, famine, sickness, disease, although they are sort of cured on Earth, it's still a problem. And you still need planets and places for people to live. So we have the Genesis device, it is actually a form of terror. Taking planets where you cannot, they're a class B type planets, trying to turn them into Class M planets, planets that can sustain life, human life, or human life life. The amazing thing about Genesis though is it is doable not in years or months, and this is important to many different science fiction franchises because aliens. And we've seen it in many other contracts as well. The Genesis device will do it in hours instead of months, instead of years. But there's a little slide of that. Uh it turns out that if views where life already exists, it will then destroy so in favor of the makers. So what's the quote? The road to Laver Good Intentions. Uh this is a pretty good example of that. Certainly, these are created with the best intentions. Scientists do fairly well about the culture, and their amazing project can now be turned into essentially the mega lab, the lab of mass destruction in the 21st century. As Fox has literally use Genesis, but McCoy sees the downside, it's a universal army. And they have one of their famous McCoy's law arguments. One of the last ones we get to see, unfortunately, but it's wonderful to see. Now, returning to the legality itself, there are not a lot of historical comparisons for this, except for really the Manhattan project, and the law, so the most powerful weapon that has ever been elected for the race. The purpose was very different. It was not a benign purpose. We were not trying to create life, we were trying to destroy it. It was a large race, and it did effectively, I mean, it was happening during World War II. But it's it's simultaneously inspiring and sort of uh inspiring because so many amazing science and great great lines that got together and achieved so much for so short a time. However, their creation was used to such destructive capacity in the life cycles we've never seen. So you can look at it both ways. Again, you have a spawn. The way in which it was regulated led to the nuclear non-proliferation. The first of its kind. Because again, we're in a we're in uncharted territory now with the atomic law in the nuclear age. But what we have happen historically is the countries come together and decide to self-regulate because they don't want to spread nuclear weapons. And this involves a pretty remarkable agreement because you have countries that already have nuclear weapons, and they agree not to share their technology with any other country that's trying to develop nuclear weapons. The countries that do not have nuclear weapons then agree to be limited and to not try to develop their own nuclear weapons. And the countries who already have the weapons, our grandfather did, as of January 1, 1967, that's the USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China. Five countries have nuclear capabilities. The non-nuclear states agree we're not going to develop nuclear weapons. That has been the way that we regulated this type of destructive power for the last 60 years. Again, the first of its kind. Star Trek does not have an exact analog. The closest, I would be very impressed with it. Does anyone actually know this? Can anyone think? Star Trek, the next generation, seventh season of the Pegasus. In there, you get a reference. Will Riker's first command, his captain says, that he alludes to a treaty with the Roman Empire, under which the Federation agreed not to develop cloaking device technologies in exchange for peace. Same arguments. People say, well, that hamstrung with the Federation, but it also cut peace. Again, controversial, but that's probably the closest analog we have on Star Trek.

Katrina Wraight 11:50

Christine, tell us, does the insanity defense apply to those with a Setting Valve of five-wheel wrapped around their circumstances?

Christine Peek 12:01

So Chekhov and Tyrrell, if he had lived, would be facing serious charges because they've aided the enemy in various ways, and that charge is potentially punishable by death. So since they're starting with officers, I'm going to start with the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice and just ask everyone to assume for now that the uniform code of justice that is referenced in the show is still. So under the UCMJ lack of mental responsibility, it was an affirmative defense that requires the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the offense, the accused suffered from a severe mental disease or defect, and as a result was unable to appreciate either the nature and quality of the acts or the wrongfulness of the acts. So if the Uniform Code of Justice had some more procedures, these issues could be raised in a proceeding called the Rule 706 Board, which is a mental health evaluation that can be ordered under rule of courts article 706 when there is reason to question whether the accused lacked mental responsibility at the time of the offense or it's currently mentally competent to stand trial. The board members have to be either a physician or a clinical psychologist, and they have to make certain findings, which include findings on requirements for the defense. The UCMJ standard is high and it would be difficult to believe. A severe mental disease of defect includes psychotic disorders, but under the RCM, it would not include minor disorders like non-psychotic behavior disorders or personality defects. The nature and quality problem asked whether the officers understood what they were doing. Or, for example, whether they believed that they were pointing their vasers at cripples rather than their fellow officers. And finally, the wrongfulness problem asked whether they had the ability to understand their conduct violating society's rules. So here the eels are said to wrap themselves around the three of the projects and it renders the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. But while suggestive elite tends to show the person's ability to control their wasn't here, courts have understood the current test to eliminate the use of assertive volitional impairments. Also, Chekhov and Joel appear to be in mental language as they're trying to list Khan's orders to kill, which suggests they do understand what they're doing and that it's wrong. So even if the charges are generally sensitive stage, that does not mean Chekhov couldn't raise the offense at trial. He could also look at whether any of the evidence shows that he could not have had the required mental state for whatever crime he's ultimately charged with. And finally, to wrap up, unlike the UCMJ, certain other jurisdictions do retain some type of volitional test. So if you don't assume that one third century law mirrors the UCMJ standard, and we would still imagine that it looks more like more like a lawful reasonable jurisdiction than a defense that Chernoff was unable to control himself might have better chances.

Secrecy Orders And Necessary Crimes

Katrina Wraight 14:52

Mark, what's Starfleet's order to not discuss Genesis lawfully?

Mark Zaid 14:59

Folks, I'm sure you remember when Kirk is trying to get back to Genesis because of what Dr. McCoy's situation is with Spox Cotra. Admiral Morrow tells him, you are all under orders not to discuss with anyone your knowledge of Genesis. Now, this one actually is a straightforward answer. In my day job, I'm a national security lawyer. I represent spies, I represent military. I do courts martials every once in a while. But I have a security clearance. I'm not until you want to kill all of you in the audience. A good Comic Con for sure. But uh we're going to assume that Starfleet is a military organization. It's obviously a combination, but we've seen episodes where there were courts marshals and they operated very much like they were a military organization. It could be like the Department of Health and Human Services Commission Corps, which also has military ranks, even though they're civilians. But assuming they are operating whether under either arrangement, when we look at it in today's world, without a doubt, that type of order would be a lawful order. They sign secrecy non-disclosure agreements. Any of us who have access to classified information, the government decides what is and is not classified. Lots of stuff is overclassified. We write about that in courts all the time. We sign certain forms, an SF 312, a standard form, that's for collateral security clearances, secret, top secret, or an SF-4414, which deals with SCI. You might hear it as T S SCI. And the Espionage Act, which goes back a hundred years, is probably still in effect in the Star Trek years as well, because it won't go away. It talks about national defense information, which isn't even classified because that term didn't yet exist. So if it's closely related to the national defense, think the Genesis would not available to the general public? Presumably not. The executive order that's in effect now, back to President Obama, Executive Order 13526 classifies military plans, weapons systems or operations, scientific technological matters relating to the national security, all of which could affect or apply to Genesis as well. And there are those, I didn't find a lot of details. There are corollary application in Starfleet regulations, they have top secret directives, they have clearance levels one through ten, whatever that might mean. So this would be an easy one that, yeah, Captain Kirk and the others, to the extent they talked about Genesis to anyone, would have violated Starfleet regulations and laws.

Katrina Wraight 17:58

Josh, tell us about the necessity defense and its application to disobeying orders and destroying the USSR practice.

Joshua Gilliland 18:06

So there's a lot of Star Trek where orders are uh interpreted loudly. There are other times when, yeah, we're just not going to do that. So Star Trek III is the pivot point where Trek really focuses on it's a family. The only thing Admiral Kirk knows is that a logic-based society has a phase where McCoy now has spot stole. McCoy's life is in danger, both of them are suffering, and Kirk can't go back to Genesis. So everyone decides to engage in a conspiracy and destroy their careers. That's what families do. Alright, we'll take over the team here. Now, how do you defend that as a lawyer? Well, the only thing we know at this point is McCoy's life is in danger, but we're going to need a contract expert to explain how much of it is in danger because it has to be immediate. There has to be this timestamp on it up. We have to do this because it's the only thing we're going to do. So we're going to steal the enterprise and everyone's comfortable with prison. That's incredible. We then get to Genesis, and the Klingons are waiting. So let's take the ship gets disabled. And I fell in love with that design when I was five. My dad decided to see the motion picture at a drive end. The chip represents Hope. Is watching her die like watching Hope die? It's a weird feeling because that's the last trick Kirk has. Destroying the ship is the only option. It's defendable. And it is a fighting chance to live. Because at the end, that's the only thing that they have. And watching that great lady die is a reminder of why history will never forget the name Annacroft.

Katrina Wraight 20:41

Jack Booth, was Admiral Kurt justifying in seizing the cling on murder, right?

Stan Boone 20:46

Well, after what Joss just said, I think that's it. Yeah, why not? What do we got to lose? Under weepers? Yeah, losers weepers. That comes back to federation law. I have some hot altered quotes. What it comes down to in this analysis is somewhat of the federation law. But what is the federation law? Is it an amalgamation of a variety of the laws or is it the federation? I think the best example is to look at the maritime ship on ship of taking a picture sermon.

Danna Nicholas 21:34

We don't do this in State Marketing.

Stan Boone 21:45

Anyway, we looked at American one. What is it? Ship on ship, right? But there are some problems because Apple Kirk didn't take a ship that wasn't to be decommissioned. It was not yet decommissioned. It was not under order. Per say, don't take this decommissioned ship out and create havoc. He was not under that. But the interesting aspect is what was the nature of the Klingon ship? What status were they in? Was this an event the Klingons had authorized? In other words, was this an act of war and therefore Admiral Kirk was justified in his conduct under maritime law? Or was this an act of piracy on the part of the Klingons as a result of their conduct? To me, the analysis comes down to it was an act of piracy. There is nothing to suggest in the record that the Klingon had authorization from the Klingons to destroy a Federation ship first, again, although Admiral Kirk didn't really know that. I'm not sure why they didn't figure that one out, but nevertheless, he did not know that. So even in an act of war context, he would have been justified in terms of seizing that particular ship. At the end of war, he would have had to turn it back. If it's an act of piracy, all bets are off. You can take Klingons on over to the Enterprise, blow them up, you're good. They're not prisons of war. It's an act of piracy. You can seize the ship. So in my determination, it was an act of piracy by the Klingons, and therefore Ethelbert was justified in taking the Klingon ship. Does it get to keep the ship? Seam.

Katrina Wraight 23:27

Judge

Extradition Time Travel And Whales

Katrina Wraight 23:28

Nicholas, the good old choice of the law question. Federation versus Klingon Law, Star Trek 4, which one would prevail? Yes.

Danna Nicholas 23:38

Okay, so imagine this at Starting 2286. Uh the Klingon ambassador comes before the Federation Council to petition for the extradition of the enterprise crew to face extradition and execution under Klingon for their actions related to the Genesis project. Okay. But before I get to the topic, I'm so super excited. This is great. I don't want any of you to miss anything. So please now take out your phone and your cameras. You're not going to want to miss this.

Steve Chu 24:10

I thought you didn't do this to you. Yeah, exactly.

Danna Nicholas 24:14

I don't know what's getting missed this. It's my pleasure and honor to introduce to you the one, the only incomparable William Chatner. No, it's just the So you can look at our poll, was the clean-on claim for extradition of the enterprise cruise app? All right, and I know the internet's low, so we can have a show of hands. How many people say it would be legal answer that almost always works? Maybe. How many people say no? The Kimmer Accords were not signed until 2293. Okay. And then finally, yes, governments with diplomatic representation can always ask, but that's right. But it's a very good split. So to answer the question, uh first we look at the laws that govern uh types of extradition in the United States, uh, what governs interstate or intrastate transfers is Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. So think whole thinking credit clause, think the uh Future and Slate Act, which is a zombie law still all goods. Uh and then when we think about external between different agencies, uh we'll look to 18 USC 31 and 4. And all that is treaty. So it's kind of a general framework. It doesn't really fly the plane, it's like air traffic controllers. We just tell the planes work. Uh and in this framework, uh, we'll see that any federal judge, uh, that's not me, that's not these guys. There has to be a treaty on the court, and then any federal judge can look at the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the charge of the agency or uh the country or entity that's trying to uh get extradition. Uh and then they may issue a warrant for extradition in accordance with that treaty. Uh but that's only if they want to. There's no mandatory language there. So the answer to the question is no, because in my estimation, the Kinnemer Courts were not signed until 2293. But that doesn't foreclose the possibility of the Federation releasing criminals to another jurisdiction after they've satisfied the Federation's evidence. But because there are future episodes of Star Trek, we know that didn't happen.

Katrina Wraight 26:52

Judge Boo, tell us, is it legal to park or I think you've all answered this.

Stan Boone 27:00

I don't need to take a survey if you've ever parked in San Francisco. Let me just say that my views do not reflect the views of the federal court. So, I mean, here it comes. I mean, this is a this is a billboard attorney's dream. This this bird prey land in San Francisco. You've got a variety. Let's skip federation law. Let's just look to federal law, because you know, the nature of federation, you still accept the jurisprudence of the entity, uh, you know, the country, etc. Uh, that's the way it's been done in Europe for many, many years when you have Federation, Swiss, etc., German Federation. So, first of all, you're gonna have federal law, you're gonna have the FAA, they're not gonna dig it. There's gonna be a variety of violations. The NTSD will be out there. Um you're gonna have you're gonna have Clean Air Act projects because you were in a particular area that was not authorized to land, therefore you create a problem. You may have clean water uh problems. And um, you know, if anybody knows the zoos right there, you're gonna have some problems with uh Endangered Species Act for sure. Because I suspect by landing that bird of prey, a few endangered species will have died in the filming of that. California law is same same analysis in terms of the, but I think the worst one would be the city of San Francisco in Canada. Um, because they will assess fees, uh etc. How do we get this out? Then they'll do it by weights, etc. And then they'll stick you for claim. So my suggestion is the analysis is no. Go to Marin County.

Katrina Wraight 29:07

Tell us about when your real name and your ID look fake.

Christine Peek 29:11

So if a person is detained or arrested, and they tell the officers their true name, rank, and service number, and then, without giving them any more information, asks, Am I free to go? Their defense counsel might be hopeful that the interaction wasn't too medium. Unfortunately, the rest of this conversation really does not roll well in the program. He does tell the truth. The problem is that no one in the 20th century Lucian actually anticipated this kind of issue when he told those in the long-term their rank in Sydney for leadership. So, setting aside the fact that this happens on a base, there's a few categories of laws potentially implicated in counters like this. One is stop and identify laws, which require an individual to identify himself under certain circumstances and post some kind of context if they don't. Obstruction statutes that criminalize and willfully obstructing the case on certain duties, and laws that criminalize false statements or falsely identifying yourself in a particular context. So, an example of a stop and identify law is a Navada statute at issue in the HIDL case. That will require individuals to identify themselves by name, and it was used as the basis for a conviction under the state's obstruction statute. In HIDL, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected fourth and fifth amendment challenges to the stop and identify law. So long as the stop is supported by the reasonable suspicion that the person has engaged in some kind of a law, and that person under the circumstances had no reasonable belief that disclosing the name would itself be probated. The court did evaluate some constitutional notations under the Fourth Amendment that the intention has been valid in the first place. Under the Fifth Amendment, if there's a reasonable belief that disclosing one's name would be approved, that might be the case that's idle title. And the law can't be so vague that it provides no standard for determining what assessment house would be applied to it. In California, by comparison, there's an appellate court case that upheld a conviction under an obstruction statute alone based on the arresting refusal to provide a same. In the Karuga case, the defendant was under arrest for a penalty and refused to be the same opinion interview. This was a fairly narrow ruling that distinguished it between opinion interview from the earlier stages of the counter. And those inabilities that people in administration of justice. Another type of law to watch out for in basic hours like this are laws that normalize getting false information, which can include false statements and law enforcement, such as 181c, section 1001, and came up with section 14. Here, Chekhov has either refused to identify nor mean false statements. His mistake was to write information that 20th century authorities all recognize is real and have no real way to confirm. But given his other activities on the base, it's probably going to be the least of his concerns.

Katrina Wraight 32:13

Judge Chu, what were McCoy's duties, if any, as a doctor in a saving woman and kidding family?

Steve Chu 32:20

So Dr. Leonard McCloy, one of the most colorful characters we have in the original series. We know he's one of the finest doctors of Starfleet. Whatever description you did, the adventure of the week. That is in one of your orders, I know. Maybe, yeah, but so he time travels. So Dr. McCoy, this is like spot report right now. This is their revenge for all the arguments they've lost, right? So give them a side. McCoy travels back to 1986. Who has not wanted some magic pill that could cure all of her wounds? And in this particular scenario, what we have is a patient with kidney dialysis that McCoy runs into at San Francisco's Mercy Hospital in the mission district. This lady, we don't know much about her. She runs into her in the hallway. We know she says she's at end-stage dialysis, so her kidneys have ceased to function very well. Kidneys are the organs that clean your blood. You typically have to rely on technology or a machine to clean your blood. So this often can be the harbinger of severe organ failure, even means death. Doesn't look like she's doing very well. McCoy, in his classic fashion, says, What's the matter with you? Great Bedside Manor. She says, kidney diology. Okay, you know, what is this, the dark apus? Take this pill and call me if you need anything. And he walks off. What does this pill do? Miraculously, it regrows an entire new kidney for her. And she's ecstatic, and if you and if you if you slow this down and listen to it, which I have, you get a doctor saying, it's a miracle, she's regrowing a new kidney. How do we do this? You know, this is unprecedented. So this is wonderful, right? It plays for laughs, it's humorous. Uh, and again, you would not want a magic pill. Now, what I never thought of as a kid watching this, and now you know, after defending doctors in medical malpractice cases, I automatically wondered how do we play with his legal responsibilities? On the one hand, all doctors, people are familiar with the Hippocratic Oath. There is a modern equivalent to that. Essentially, people believe it says do no harm, and it does, but it says more than that. Um, more specifically, the modern oath says apply for the benefit of the city. All measures require. So try to help people. There's also the Geneva Declaration, the pledge to save humanity. The health of the patient will be my first consideration. So this is uh again, a doctor should be inclined to help people. So McCoy's probably following through on his oath. But we have in the other direction a more strong general order one, the prime directive, who are not to interfere with the natural events, the natural course of events of a world. So, and in Star Trek, we later learned about the temporal prime directives. You get this in the next generation, Voyager, he placed an iron. Is McCoy violating the prime directive, or more specifically, the temporal crime directive, by saving this woman who's you know, suffering kidney failure with a magic pill? Anyone say yes? Raise a hand? Oh, okay. Alright. Anyone say no? McCoy's good. He's in the Okay. What would most likely happen? I think that he is technically violating the temporal crime directive. But in legal Turk jargon, it's diminish. This is a lady who is probably close to the end of her life. She's probably not the next connutian sing or the next tremendously affected events. So the temporal agents will probably visit McCoy and slap him on the wrist and say, Alright, don't do it again. McCoy says sure, and then the next episode they'll do it again.

Katrina Wraight 36:23

Judge Nicholas, can you violate the marine mammal protection?

Danna Nicholas 36:30

I know. And I'm gonna speed through this really quickly because we really want to get to your questions, but to me, this is the marine mammal protection act. So whip out those phones again. Did it spark haraps Gracie within the meeting of the MMPA? Maybe mine melded with her. All those in favor of option A, no, she was already in a research and aquarium facility. Raise it high and crap. Okay. Alright. Uh B, unsure. I need more information on marine mammal law. Correct. C, yes, mine melding constitutes harassment under the statute. And D, no, spot, active, respectful. Well, let's kind of get into uh 16 USC 1362, and it identifies what actually constitutes harassment of the animals. So if you think level A, it's your entry level harassment. It's the things that would cause that it's an act of pursuit or torment, or just generally annoying the animal. That's really what section A is. And then we get to our higher level, uh, which is level B harassing. And that's anything that disturbs the animal's natural behavior, their pattern. If you abandon it or cause something to alter it or deviate it, then that's a level B harassment. And what's important about that is it's up to $20,000 per violation and up to a year in jail. So if you do this, some jurisdictions and some prosecutors will charge you for each animal. So if you can imagine $20,000 per mail, that's quite a bit of money. All right. And then our next poll here, should the King of Burden Craig be forfeited under the MLPA or should the crew keep it? All right, all in favor of yes, forfeit the ship, the law's the law. Okay? No, they saved the earth. Give them the ship. No, it's government property. Yep, my little people give them the ship. And then maybe it depends on whether the whales consented to time to go. Well, the answer is yes. The MMPA allows for forfeiture of any vessel used in violation, even at the right. So I would refer to you to USC uh 16 USC 1376.

Katrina Wraight 39:20

So, would you like to uh line up, I believe? Alright. That's okay. I'll uh I can write. Yes, go ahead.

Audience Member 01 39:32

Uh so when you're talking about the question of McCoy freeing the patient in the hospital, what about medical malpractice? So she didn't suffer injury, there was not really any formal consent in these freedom for her.

Danna Nicholas 39:44

Good luck with her trying to find it.

Steve Chu 39:48

Under Claude versus Grant, you know, the United States, the California Supreme Court has ruled on the scope of the formal consent. And the there is a question. Did she consent? Yes, she took the pill. But did she know what the pill was for? That may be where there's a little bit of gray area. As a practical, that's the legal, you know, 10,000 square foot view. The more practical question though is let's say the next week her newly grown kidney starts malfunctioning. She wants to sue McCoy. Where is she gonna find it? It's long gone. At best, she probably sues Mercy Hospital, and they're gonna have a heck of a time trying to track out McCoy about that. Technically, should she have a cause of action? Potentially. Practically speaking, it's gonna be pretty hard to prevail there. I think they're gonna have hard to find an export on what kind of pill that was. Yeah, the kidney re the kidney uh respawn to get arrested down in here.

Section 31 Augments And Tuvix

Katrina Wraight 40:49

Yes, go ahead. Um, what do you think of the legality of the 31?

Joshua Gilliland 41:00

So it's a quantum right now.

Steve Chu 41:02

What do we think of the legality of section 31?

Joshua Gilliland 41:06

So Deep Space Nine is where they're introduced. It's the super secret government spy agency within the Federation, and they're bumping people off, it's dark, and the issue is it's highly incompatible with the Federation values. Can you have that? We have spy craft all the time. We find out when they fit. Don't find out if they're successful because 9-11s don't happen. So can you have spies that are making those type of decisions? Technically, no, but you have a right to defend the country. And Martin, I think that's enough of a foundation for you to take it from there.

Mark Zaid 41:52

I I would definitely represent any whistleblowers who wanted to come forward against that. Uh and no, I mean look, the agencies are not allowed. There could be presidential authorization for things like that. Uh and there there are some examples in our own history with respect to that type of conduct. But you can think of a Rod Contra and it's still prosecutions, even though the president had authorized the sale of arms to the Contras of the Boam. Uh but it certainly, as Josh says, would go against what the Federation speaks to. So I mean, I guess, not to be political, but I guess Donald Trump is right. There's a deep state, even in even in the 24th century.

Joshua Gilliland 42:37

We see the introduction to it in enterprise. Uh, you see it again in Discovery, where they have full-on fleets, and that's just weird. Um they have control, which is their AI that eventually gets shut down. So the idea of that, yeah, we're gonna have a central intelligence agency, not having one pre-World War II, I think it was problematic. And so, because we as in our country, we were not cool with that idea. After World War II, we got very comfortable with having spy stories.

Steve Chu 43:14

I think also the very existence of the organization is not necessarily illegal. What they do if they cross the line, I think it becomes a case-by-case question.

Joshua Gilliland 43:24

Yeah, bumping off long little terrible officials.

Audience Member 01 43:28

Yes, okay.

Audience Member 02 43:29

Uh yeah. My question is: considering the orbers would be actually illegal within the federation, do they actually have any human rights? Or rights the same as federation citizens, considering that Carl's a war criminal, then the others might be real criminals, and their existence is basically illegal within the federation at that point. So wouldn't you okay just dropping them off you know anywhere?

Joshua Gilliland 43:57

So the uh Stranger Worlds has done the nice Job talking about augments and uh their issues uh on whether or not you can actually ban people from being in Starfleet on the basis of augmentation. Um of the issues with uh Pander Una is the this idea that just because she has a genetic heritage that gives her enhancements is not a reason for throwing her out of service. It took us a very long time for women to be permitted in combat. It took us a very long time for African Americans to be permitted to be in the military, starting with the Civil War, and then segregation, and then President Truman integrated the military. It took a long time for women to be fighter pilots. So the idea of saying we're gonna knock out an entire class of individuals because we don't like their background is an odd one. Now, we don't know the full story of the eugenics wars. So there's a reason to say we don't do genetic enhancements anymore, but do you discriminate against all that? I think that's the bigger issue.

Mark Zaid 45:14

I think part of it also will be from where you're from. I heard an accent, and you might have a different view. Our ancestors are to think back to World War II, in the end, the Brits and the Russians and the Soviets just wanted to execute all of the Nazis, just line them up against the wall, done. The United States advocated for the International Military Tribunal, everyone agreed. What we don't see at the end of Spaceed is a trial. Now it's pretty obvious they're guilty, and they would have no doubt been convicted. Uh not that I'm prejudging. But there wasn't that. They they just declared uh punishment right then and there. So there they could have a maybe they have a legal, a civil lawsuit against that.

Katrina Wraight 45:59

Yes, Jeff and Bush.

Audience Member 03 46:02

Well, I don't know if you guys were aware of what is your husband.

Joshua Gilliland 46:08

Tuvics? Yeah. Okay. So did Jane Wade kill Tuvics? Yeah, she did. Is that okay? No. Were there other options? Yeah, duplicate him, then separate them. So do the Riker maneuver.

Stan Boone 46:26

That's something we all have been lost for.

Steve Chu 46:37

Um, it was created by the destruction of two other life forms. So you've got three different life forms now and claiming a right to life. How do you decide? And that's what Star Trek does so well, they ask the question to which there is no right or wrong answer. It's about how you get there, right? It's like the premise of Paul's graph.

Speaker 5 46:56

Yes, yes.

Audience Member 03 46:57

So

Child Support Money And Closing

Audience Member 03 46:58

what's it is Tech and Kirk liable for back child support?

Joshua Gilliland 47:06

Is Kirk liable for back child support? Let's back up. He did not abandon David. Carol, in this exchange for Carol Marcus, he says, I did what you wanted, I stayed away. And Harold did not want her son to follow her father's footsteps.

Danna Nicholas 47:27

I mean, if I put my hands on the first thing with any type of family law, and I have 18 months of it. No, I think that uh he potentially could be, right? Uh so it just depends on when she filed, where she filed, and whether or not he had reason to believe that this child was there, and then whether or not she received any type of services from the government. Did she receive any federation, child care, or daycare, to make any of those claims? Because if she did, I'm so sorry, Kirk. You owe some money back.

Audience Member 04 48:15

At this time, it's a money-free society in the end.

Steve Chu 48:20

Yeah, that's all right.

Katrina Wraight 48:26

So does that change anybody's announcement?

Steve Chu 48:28

Star Trek's uh claim to be a money-free society is actually very good in principle, but in practice it completely breaks down in every episode they try to explain. That's not them. Deep space time. Yes. You know, Car when he tries to explain to Ruby in first content, oh, how much does this cost? Oh, the economics of the future are different. Well, how? Well, they just are. And then if you read Star Trek role-playing games, you know, from FASA, they actually give pay levels for the different ranks. Why do you need pay and credits if you if there's no money, if you know if the economics are different? So I think that there's still money. It's just Star Trek doesn't really know how to explain this.

Speaker 5 49:10

I mean, if I was if I was Kirk's lawyer, I would raise. Oh yeah, no question. Right, right. You know something. Yeah.

Audience Member 03 49:20

Uh if the enterprise that sees the uh bird of prey in space, you know, space international strike would be uh either a piracy or act of high armed robbery in the place.

Stan Boone 49:34

Well, you know what's interesting about that, because remember there that the sh Klingon was gone to the neutral zone. And what is the effect of that? Um and you have to look to the equivalency. I still think it's an act of piracy, by the way, the Klingon is active, uh, and therefore Kirk was justified in doing what he did because it was just a sheer act of piracy.

Katrina Wraight 49:58

I think that's all the time that we have. Thank you guys so much for joining.