Volume 1, Issue 3
3rd Quarter, 2006

BINA48 VS. EXABIT CORPORATION (Fla. MD 2005): Defendant's Brief

page 5 of 8

Plaintiff maintains that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter because the claims submitted today arise under the Constitution – specifically Plaintiff claims violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

Amendment XIII of the U.S. Constitution states the following:

      Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
      Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution states the following:

      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Plaintiff’s argument fails on both accounts because the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments cover “persons” and “citizens” of the United States, not machines. BINA48 is neither a person nor a citizen of the United States and thus cannot avail itself of the U.S. court system.

“The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words…But in nearly all these instances [where ‘person’ is mentioned in the Constitution], the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally … All this, together with our observation, … persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

See Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 351 S.E.2d 267 (Ga. App. 1986) citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 92 S. Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).

If the Constitution does not include - and the Legislature likewise has not acted to include - the unborn as the equivalent of a “person” subject to legal status and protection, certainly technology (i.e., the advanced BINA48), which is biologically farther removed, should not either.

Because BINA48 is not a “person” subject to Constitutional protection, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied and all claims dismissed.

5. No Valid Cause of Action

Plaintiff appears before this Court today requesting an injunction. To succeed, Plaintiff must demonstrate that it has a valid underlying cause of action and that it will succeed in establishing a prima facie[1] case for each claim asserted.

Plaintiff argues it can prevail on Florida tort claims of:

Plaintiff also claims protected status under the U.S. Constitution, specifically:

Plaintiff has presented no evidence that it will prevail on the above claims. In fact, the opposite is true.   

A “machine” has been granted no legal status or rights (other than as property/chattel of the owner) under Federal or state law. Because neither the Federal nor Florida legislative branches have acted otherwise, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, as such, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).

(i) Plaintiff has no valid cause of action for battery.

Battery consists of “the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent.” Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Under Florida Statute § 1.01 (3):

The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint ventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. 
FL ST § 1.01 (3).

Plaintiff’s civil battery claim fails in the instant case because Florida law does not grant a right of action (for battery) to a machine/chattel. Because Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case that BINA48 is a “person” covered and protected under Florida law, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.

Next Page

1. Prima facie – (Latin) At first sight; on the face of it; presumably. Describes something that will be considered to be true unless disproved by contrary evidence. A prima facie case is a law-suit that will win unless the other side comes forward with evidence to disprove it. [pronounced pry-ma-fay-she]. Oran, Daniel. Law Dictionary for Nonlawyers Fourth Edition. New York: Delmar, 2000. (back to top)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next page>