|
Volume 1, Issue 3
3rd Quarter, 2006
Submission Guidelines
Sponsorship and Editors
Other Terasem Journals
Journal
of Geoethical Nanotechnology
|
BINA48 VS. EXABIT CORPORATION (Fla. MD 2005): Defendant's Brief
page 4 of 8
BINA48 is not a citizen as defined under the U.S. Constitution, Florida law, or otherwise. As such, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding and the motion/case should be dismissed.[1]
In United Stated v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court was called upon to define the term “citizen” as used in the Constitution. The Court held: “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of those words (the Citizenship Clause) ***. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169, U.S. 649; see also Baldwin v. Williams, 399 U.S. 117, 90 S.Ct. 1914 (1970).
Because neither history, the original framers of the Constitution, nor the Legislature have defined “citizen” to include a computer (albeit an advanced computer), Plaintiff has no legal basis by which to invoke this Court’s jurisdictional powers and protection. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied and all claims dismissed.
The issue of “citizenship” brings up other important questions for the Court’s consideration:
- The computer BINA48 is physically located in California. If BINA48 is to be treated as an entity similar to a “person,” it follows then that its citizenship (or residency) for venue purposes is currently in California, not Florida. Likewise, the alleged wrongful act (disconnecting the BINA48 program) would occur in California and BINA48 cannot bring a cause of action in Florida.
- If BINA48 is the equivalent of a “person” and is in California, how can it also be a resident of Florida for purposes of filing the instant action? (Should a court grant more rights to a machine than a person?)
- If BINA48 is not a machine limited by one physical space, but is “software” that can be transferred/copied to multiple locations; and if BINA48 was somehow able to transfer its program/”memory” to a location in Florida, where is the harm in Exabit Corporation turning-off (disconnecting) the BINA48 program in California? Plaintiff would be unable to prove it was harmed by Defendant’s actions and an argument could be made that the issue is now moot.
- If BINA48 is considered software and the Court agrees that Plaintiff has access to the court system in Florida and California, the result of such ruling would be that BINA48 could, in effect, be a resident of multiple states, even multiple countries. Unlike humans who could only physically reside in one place at a time, BINA48 could potentially reside in every state in the Union. What are the implications of this phenomenon - that a machine could bring suit anywhere, but a person could not?
- If BINA48 is a computer, equivalent to property/chattel, how was it able to incorporate itself? (Property does not incorporate).
- If BINA48 is to be treated as a “person,” how could it have incorporated herself? (People do not incorporate themselves).
- If BINA48 was the rightful property of another (i.e., Defendant Exabit Corporation), how was Terasem (and three of its board members) able to secure Plaintiff’s corporate status?
As noted above, Plaintiff will have a difficult time proving it is a “citizen” for purposes of Diversity. Because Plaintiff is unable to meet this burden, its Motion for Preliminary Injunction fails.
Because Plaintiff’s Motion fails, Defendant is entitled to seek and recover damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b):
(b) Except when express provision thereof is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum of $75,000, … the district court may … impose costs on the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b), Defendant demands that costs be imposed against Plaintiff as the Court deems appropriate.
(ii) Federal Question.
§ 1331. Federal Question.
The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or Treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Footnotes
1. Defendant does not challenge the amount in controversy ($75,000) at this time, and expressly reserves the right to argue such issue at a later time. (back to top)
<previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next page>
Back to Issue Contents
|
The
Terasem Pledge
We
pledge allegiance to the flag of the collective consciousness of Terasem,
and to the principles for which it stands, education, persistently,
with diversity, unity, and joyful immortality everywhere.
|
