In this episode:

Mike and Ed discuss the trial of the century! Namor the Submariner is on trial for vandalism, which seems like a minor charge for the head of state of an empire that attempted to take over the world. He is represented by celebrity lawyer Matthew Murdock. Murdock, who also represents the Fantastic Four in real estate matters and is accordingly well familiar with super-powered individuals and their super-powered issues. But regardless of client base, can one lawyer really understand civil AND criminal law? Is Murdock too specialized … or not specialized enough?

Behind the issue:

Namor continues to be one of the only “anti-heroes” in Marvel Comics at the time. He is self-righteous and impatient, but he is also honorable and motivated by more than taking over the world and being “evil”. Stan Lee clearly liked writing this character, and he will soon get his own monthly feature.

In this issue:

Namor, as leader of Atlantis, wants to find a peaceful way to take over the surface world. He visits Matt Murdock and tells him he wants to sue the human race Murdock says that’s impossible, and Namor leaves in a huff. He then causes a ruckus in New York City, causing wanton property damage, leading to his arrest after battling Daredevil (who is secretly Matt Murdock) in the streets. Murdock then represents Namor on the criminal charges brought against him, and countercharges the human race (which is quickly, and correctly, thrown out of court). Namor is then informed of a rebellion back home, which causes him to just leave the jail and attempt to return home. Daredevil battles Namor again, and does quite well, but ultimately Namor wins the battle and returns to his life below the waves.

Assumed before the next episode:

Matt Murdock rethinks his approach to the practice of law after this disastrous experience.

This episode takes place:

After Namor returns to the sea.

Full transcript:

Edward: Mike, does this mean that we're defendants? Are we defendants because we're part of the human race? ?

Micheal: Short answer, no. , no. But it's a surprising turn of events in,

Edward: is it though, is it surprising? Is it actually surprising?

Micheal: I guess we should, we should never use the word surprising when it comes to superheroes and New York City. But, the recent news. Not surprising, but unfortunate from a lawyer's perspective about the abuse of the legal system and the justice system. I would say,

Edward: Mike, you can handle it when they tear apart our cities, but when they tear apart our legal system, that's when you get upset.

Micheal: That's a long too far. Ed. That's just a, just, it's too much. It's outrageous. It's outrageous. I'll say that,

Edward: So, hey, what I'm talking about here is that, Namo, the Submariner, the Prince of Atlantis, was charged with what, with vandalism. He's going to jail for vandalism, ,

Micheal: pretty penny anti stuff, like causing a ruckus in the city and causing damage. And then he hires a pretty wellknown lawyer. A lawyer we've talked about before, Matt Murd.

Edward: Yeah. Matt Murdoch. So he represents the Fantastic four. He also had some notoriety in the past. He came forward and said that made this big claim that he could prove that Daredevil and the Matador were the same person and it turned out that that was not true. , that Daredevil is not the Matador. And, he got a little bit of egg on his face for that one, but now he's back, he's back in the public eye. Probably the most famous lawyer in the world, right. .

Micheal: Yeah. So, I've always found it confusing when I've read about Mad Murdoch, cuz I thought he was mainly a criminal lawyer. So it's odd that he would be on retainer or have anything to do with a Fantastic Four. But here at least he, it started out as being a criminal matter like NAR was charged with an offense and had to appear in criminal court. But what was confusing? Which causes me to question Matt Murdoch. As a lawyer is that he filed a counter charge. You're gonna see entire human race. No, no. Like what's, that's, that's, that's ridiculous. Like, like

Edward: so, so Mike, in your legal opinion, he can't do that.

Micheal: Yes, yes. That's my legal opinion. Like there's, there's just no way to describe it other than the criminal court involves, there's prosecutions in the simplest way, the state lays a charge against a person for an offense and that's what happens. Like the person who's been charged with the offense doesn't get to claim against this. The state , if you like, we have a whole system, we have civil litigation for that purpose. If you want to say as an individual, Sue, the United States. You can advance a claim, I guess if you're the basis for it, or Sue you, or anybody.

But you don't,

Edward: could you, could you Sue the, is the human race one of the options? Can you Sue the entire, no, not a person. But what, but what if the human race has done me wrong? What if the human race has, I don't know, killed my dog, can't I? Can I file a claim against the human race for doing that?

Micheal: No. No, ed, I'm just telling you I'm gonna entertain this. Other than like, you just can't. You can't. If you've got a problem with the human race, I guess, you know, then you should. Talk to like a therapist or something. But if you have a claim for damages that you want to advance in civil court, it would be against entities such as United States. It could be the state of New York. It could be, any number of companies. It could be any number of people. But this concept of the human race, uh, isn't, uh, a, a viable party.

Edward: How small a group do you have to go to? Like the Native Americans were treated very badly by the European settlers when they came to America. If there is a leader of the Native American tribes, can they counter Sue against the American people, the American government? Is that possible?

Micheal: I don't wanna get into that, that's a whole conversation about indigenous rights but you're talking about a group of people who have been mistreated in the past. It's not like you could just Sue a group of people you need a definable defendant. You can't counterclaim against the human race when you've been charged criminally and that's what Matt Murdoch did. And the question is why would he do that? Because he's obviously not a moron, but that's a moronic thing to do, like and it,

Edward: it's, you're not stupid, sir. But that was a stupid question, .

Micheal: That's right. And it's so why would he do it? He's not an idiot, so he knows that he shouldn't do this, and the only person that benefits from what he did is himself. For the notoriety, because we're talking about it right now. Naor doesn't benefit from it because he's, first of all, he's paying Matt Murdoch for this service, and it's a service that he can't really discharge, which is. To represent him properly in a criminal dispute where he advances a claim that they'll be dismissed right away.

Edward: Unless Namir is just doing it for publicity as well. Sure. Matt Murdoch's getting a ton of publicity from this, but so is Namir. I think everyone is talking about the fact that he believes that. Humanity owes him something. And I think that talk has happened. Clearly the judge shot it down. There's no counterclaim happening, but, we're still talking about it. Maybe that's what he wanted.

Micheal: As it relates to Murdoch. I think that he acted contrary to the duty that he owes as a lawyer, because you're an officer of the court and you can't knowingly advance something that's fundamentally inconsistent with the justice system. There is a time and a place to advance a claim, a personal claim. It's not a criminal court. And Murdoch knows that such a complete waste of time and a complete waste of judicial resources. And he shouldn't have done

Edward: but, but Mike, yeah. But it was one sentence he said in his corner or that was shot down immediately? No, no, no. As far as time wasted, like there was not that much time was.

Micheal: No, no. Ed, I know that he says he, he wanted to file that, but he had to actually file written papers. The other side being the state would've to respond to it, to dismiss it and, advance an argument. But what I'm saying is that Murdoch, if he truly wanted to discharge his duty, and he would've the same notoriety to be honest. If he could have, assisted na more as a head of states, I suppose, to navigate diplomatic world, to advance grievances, I guess between one state and the United States and perhaps advance that the United Nations or. Consider how to advance a civil claim for damages with respect to say, I don't know, the ocean or something and how the United States is interfering with their homeland. There's things that can happen countries have disputes through different processes and treaties throughout the world or on the world. You could advance these claims, but to do it in this, it's abusive of the system of justice and it's also just counterproductive and it didn't really serve what apparently name or aims are. And I think as a lawyer you have to do your best to serve the interests of your client, even if it's telling them, great idea. We can't do that. , and here's why.

Edward: Well, this is why that you're not his lawyer. Mike, if you, if he came to you , you'd be like, no, go, swim in an ocean Naor. But Murdoch was like, Hey, I'll take you for your word a