What is the Legal Status of the Undead?

ralph124c · January 15, 2009, 1:10pm

I am aware of two classes of undead people that ought to concern us:

Zombies: these are re-animated corpses, who display no human emotions. their sole aim is to eat the brains of living humans. How are they handled under the law?
Those people in “Coldsleep”: thse are people who have been frozen, at the point of death. They will be revived at some future date-what is their status?
I would like to know; are any lawyers pioneering this legal frontier?

Munch · January 15, 2009, 2:09pm

I for one am terrified of zombie lawyers. (Or is it lawyer zombies?)

Q.E.D · January 15, 2009, 2:50pm

There is no legal status for something which doesn’t exist.

MichaelQReilly · January 15, 2009, 3:51pm

By and large, human remains are treated as the property of the deceased’s estate.

Lumpy · January 15, 2009, 3:58pm

If I understand correctly, zombies have no remnants of their former human personalities, and are completely incapable of human standards of behavior. So they have no status as people.

Coldsleep needs clarifying: if you’re talking about a state of suspended animation in which they maintained in a revivable condition, then they’re still alive but unconcious. If they’re currently unrevivable, but frozen in the hopes that someday their bodies can be rebuilt at the cellular/ molecular level, then they’re legally dead.

DrFidelius · January 15, 2009, 3:59pm

You call it “coldsleep.” We call it “organ banks.”

The kzinti call it “the frozen food section.”

Ethilrist · January 15, 2009, 4:04pm

You forgot about vampires.

Captain_Amazing · January 15, 2009, 4:22pm

Like Discworld’s Mr. Slant?

Mr.Slant · January 15, 2009, 6:18pm

If you don’t get recorded in public records as dead, I suspect your legal status is going to be that of a free citizen.
Of course, if you’re not going to play nice with others and insist on eating their brain, you’ll wind up burnt, sliced, diced, imprisoned or declared incompetent in probate court.

Disclaimer: I’ll point out that my being licenced to practice practice law in your jurisdiction is every bit as likely that the OP’s question matters.

Munch · January 15, 2009, 7:23pm

What’s practice law, and when are they going to let you practice real law?

Punoqllads · January 15, 2009, 7:31pm

Well, there was a discussion on how zombies would inherit property over at lawdopers: can blackacre vest in a zombie? - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board.

Mr.Slant · January 15, 2009, 7:44pm

Whoops. Missed the edit window on that one.

Elendil_s_Heir · January 15, 2009, 7:56pm

If these issues ever ended up in my court:

As you say, they’re re-animated corpses. Until the legislature provides otherwise, however, their deaths stripped them of all rights in the first place. In seeking to eat the braaaaaaaaaaaains of living humans, they are now analogous to dangerous animals, and may be destroyed with no legal consequences for the scared nubile teenager holding the shotgun.
Those in coldsleep are incompetent but not dead. Just like someone in an irreversible coma, they cannot be removed from life support and deprived of life without due process of law. Killing them would be murder. I suppose if a coldsleeper (band name!) had left a durable power of attorney, the holder of her POA could sue and be sued on her behalf, but otherwise she’s pretty much “on ice” legally-speaking for the duration of her medically-induced slumber. I know of no attorneys currently practicing coldsleep law.

mlees · January 15, 2009, 8:31pm

They are no longer considered married.

Malthus · January 15, 2009, 8:38pm

I dunno about the undead, but in Ontario at least there is actual legal precident for the legal status of Martians.

I’m an Ontario lawyer, and I was tangentally involved in that case.

Indexed as:
Joly v. Pelletier
Between
Rene Joly, and
R. Pelletier, Clive Livingstone Clarke, Henry Cussy et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Roland Pelletier, et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Shoppers Drugmart et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
MDS Laboratories et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Wainbee Limited et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Pharma Plus Drugmarts et al.
[1999] O.J. No. 1728
Court File Nos. 99-CV-166273 and 99-CV-167339
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Epstein J.
May 16, 1999.
(4 pp.)
Practice — Persons who can sue and be sued — Individuals and corporations, status or standing — Pleadings — Striking out pleadings — Grounds, failure to disclose cause of action or defence — Grounds, false, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous — Grounds, abuse of process, hopeless suit.
This was an application by the defendant Pelletier and others to strike out two related actions. The plaintiff Joly claimed to be a Martian. He argued that Pelletier and the other defendants conspired to interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely. The defendants argued that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action and that the actions were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

HELD: Application allowed. No cause of action was disclosed in the pleadings. Joly could not be a plaintiff under the Rules if he was neither a human being nor a corporation. Furthermore, the claims were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process. It was plain and obvious that the actions could not succeed. The pleadings made unreasonable aspersions and did not present rational arguments. The actions were patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue. Furthermore, the pleadings were defective in so far as the tort of conspiracy had not been properly pleaded, no damages had been claimed and a number of the parties joined as defendants were not proper legal entities.

Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:
Interpretation Act, s. 29.

Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 1.02, 21.01(3)(b), 25.11.

Counsel:
No counsel mentioned.

1 EPSTEIN J. (endorsement):— This endorsement relates to a series of motions brought on behalf of a number of the defendants in two related actions commenced in this Court by the plaintiff, Rene Joly. The moving parties seek orders striking out the Statements of Claim and thereby dismissing the actions on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no cause of action (rule 21.01(3)(b)) or are frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court (rule 25.11).

2 Mr. Joly’s claims in these two actions, and in several others not currently before me, all centre on his firm assertion that he is not a human being; rather a martian. As I understand them, the nature of his complaints against the numerous defendants who include a number of doctors, medical facilities and government agencies is that they have conspired with the American government in its attempts to eliminate him and have otherwise taken various steps to interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely as a martian.

3 As indicated, there are two actions before me. At the beginning of the hearing Mr. Joly advised me that he has recently commenced a third action against, among others, the Central Intelligence Agency, President Clinton and the Honourable Anne McClellan for interfering with his D.N.A. test results that prove that he is, in fact, not human.

4 Given the related issues in the three actions brought in this Court, I ordered that the three proceedings be consolidated. All parties consented to this order. An order will issue to this effect. Unfortunately, I failed to note the action number of the third action affected by this order.

5 As another preliminary matter, I should indicate that given the unusual nature of the plaintiff’s claims, a discussion took place at the beginning of argument as to whether I should order that a hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules of Civil procedure for a determination as to whether the plaintiff was in a position properly to represent his interests on the motions or whether a litigation guardian should be appointed. As a result of this issue having been raised, I arranged for a reporter to record the proceedings and the plaintiff agreed to testify under oath and answer certain questions posed by Mr. Novak, counsel who appeared on behalf of a number of the defendants. At the conclusion of this form of hearing and having considered the submissions made, I determined that there was no reason to delay the argument of the motions. I made the observation that in every respect Mr. Joly properly conducted himself before the Court. He presented himself as polite, articulate, intelligent and appeared to understand completely the issues before the Court and the consequences should I grant the relief sought. There was nothing before me, other than the uniqueness of the pleadings in question, for me, on my own volition, to adjourn, pending a hearing to determine if Mr. Joly is under some form of disability. This observation, the fact that no one was really urging me to adjourn and the costs to all concerned of having these proceedings protracted, factored into my decision to proceed.

6 Finally, I add that at the request of the parties, leave was granted to adduce evidence at the hearing. Both Mr. Novak and Mr. Joly presented evidence to the Court in support of their submissions.

7 The crux of the various arguments advanced orally and in the written material is that Mr. Joly’s claims disclose no cause of action and are otherwise frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. It was also argued that the tort of conspiracy was not properly pleaded and that no damages have been identified or claimed. It was further pointed out that several of the defendants are not legal entities and are not capable of being sued.

8 Mr. Joly, in a well prepared, thoughtful argument submitted that he had evidence of falsification of records and related wrongdoing. On the pivotal point of Mr. Joly’s being in fact a martian Mr. Joly advised me that the only reason he was not now able to satisfy the Court that he is a martian, not a human, is due to the falsification of his D.N.A. test results by the Americans.

9 The authorities relied upon by the moving parties are well known. On a motion to strike out a pleading, the Court must accept the facts as alleged in the Statement of Claim as proven unless they are patently ridiculous and incapable of proof and must read the Statement of Claim generously with allowance for inadequacies due to drafting deficiencies. See Nash v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (1995), 27 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.). Perhaps the leading case is that of Carey Canada Inc. v. Hunt et al. (1990) 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (S.C.C) in which the test in Canada is described as assuming that the facts as stated in the Statement of Claim can be proved, the Court must be satisfied that it is “plain and obvious” that the plaintiff’s statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action.

10 Concerning rule 25.11, the Court will dismiss or stay an action as being frivolous, vexatious or abusive only in the clearest cases where it is plain and obvious the case cannot succeed. The decision in Steiner v. Canada [1996] F.C.J. No. 1356 (Fed. T.D.) makes it clear that if a pleading does not present a rational argument, either on the evidence or in law, in support of the claim, and casts unreasonable aspersions is frivolous.

11 In my opinion there are at lease two reasons why the two Statements of Claim in question ought to be struck and the actions dismissed.

Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as “a person who commences an action”. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as “an individual human being”. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly’s actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.
2.
In respect to the motions brought under rule 25.11 I am of the view that the test has been passed in the circumstances of this case. In other words, I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court. In addition to the fact that the tort of conspiracy has not been remotely properly pleaded, no damages have been claimed and many of the defendants are not even legal entities capable of being sued. More importantly, with all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been forced to defend these actions.
12 In the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the moving parties are entitled to the relief requested. The Statements of Claim in both actions are struck and the actions are dismissed.

13 The defendants are entitled to their costs of the actions but it would seem to be that the defence has likely incurred little if any costs in defending the actions. The moving parties are certainly entitled to their costs of the motions, if demanded. If the parties require any assistance with respect to the resolution of costs, they may arrange a conference call through the assistance of my secretary.

EPSTEIN J.

Emphasis added.

There is a legal reason the case went the way it did, which I’ll bore people with if they want to know.

Mr.Slant · January 15, 2009, 8:54pm

Do your judges always give such a detailed explanation when they toss out a case that’s clearly toss-bait?

Malthus · January 15, 2009, 9:09pm

There is a reason - appellate courts at that time in particular did not like cases being dismissed on a summary basis. Thus the more explaination you give, the more chance you will not be overturned.

The problem in this case was a rational-sounding person arguing a case with some drafting skill which was based on an obviously absurd premise - that he was a Martian. The problem is that it is difficult to dismiss a case at the preliminary motion stage because the evidence for it sucks or is absurd - much easier to dismiss based on some legal failing. In this case, “Martians do not have standing to sue” = doesn’t require evidence to prove.

[Much to the detriment of any real Martians who happen to sue in Ontario in the future. :D]

AK84 · January 15, 2009, 10:18pm

I am a lawyer, shoot away. If something like that had occurred in England it would have been tossed out in 2 minutes, the guy would have had a wasted costs order against him, and a visit to the Judges chambers, and it won’t be about what a fine advocate he was.

mks57 · January 15, 2009, 10:27pm

Could you use that as a defense in a criminal case?

Yes, I shot the bastard, but here are the results of a DNA test that conclusively proves that I’m not a human. Can I go now?

Malthus · January 15, 2009, 10:29pm

At that time (end of the 90s) the Ontario appellate courts were on the warpath over “excessive” use of summary motions proceedings to turf out cases before trial. They were sending the message to the lower courts not to punt cases because the lower court judges didn’t like them because the evidence wasn’t sufficient.

Now, in theory at least, whether or not this guy was a Martian is an evidentiary issue. An absurd one, but there it is. By structuring it as a question of standing, the judge framed it as a legal issue, not an evidentiary one.

Of course, she goes on to say that the case is absurd and a waste of time. The song and dance about standing is a “belt and suspenders” approach, used just to forestall appellate court interference.

You will note of course the “Martian” plaintiff got costs awarded against him.