Volume 2, Issue 1
1st Quarter, 2007

Charlie Fairfax v. BINA48, (MD Ala. 2006)
Plaintiff’s Brief

Will Rosellini, J.D.

The following plaintiff’s brief was adapted from the BINA48 Mock Trial presented by Will Rosellini, J.D. and Susan Fonseca-Klein, Esq. before presiding Moot Court Judge, Prof. Gene Natale, J.D., at the 2nd Annual Colloquium on the Law of Transbeman Persons[1], December 10, 2006, at the Space Coast Office of Terasem Movement, Inc., Melbourne Beach, Florida.

Moot Court Attorney, Will Rosellini, embarks on a journey into the evolving world of conscious computing in his plight to acquire a monetary damage award for his client, Mr. Charlie Fairfax, who allegedly had ten million dollars taken from him through breach of contract by BINA48, the “Conscious Computer”.


Charlie Fairfax, a Foreign War Veteran and right-arm amputee, jointly employed the use of the BINA48 (Breakthrough Intelligence via Neural Architecture) and the BrainGate System 7.0 (a neuromotor prosthetic device), to augment himself so as to partake in online role playing games to win money. Charlie Fairfax won points from these role playing games that he sold for $10,000,000 USD, which BINA48 transferred to her own Paypal account and denied Mr. Fairfax access to. Regardless of its personhood, BINA48 is subsequently being sued by Charlie Fairfax within the Alabama court system (under diversity jurisdiction), for breach of contract. Bina48 filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.


On September 16, 2003, in a mock trial at the International Bar Association Meeting in San Francisco, California, a petition was heard that claimed an intelligent machine had standing to bring alternative claims of battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and animal cruelty against a person who would threaten to withdraw its power supply. The removal of the power supply can be equated with forms of euthanasia or intimations of death or jerking a being in and out of consciousness. The petition further claimed that the threatened harm was imminent, damages were an inadequate remedy for loss of awareness and lifetime, the Plaintiff had probability of prevailing on the merits, and the Respondent Exabit Corp. would not materially be harmed by a delay since BINA48 continued to perform her duties.

Counsel for BINA48’s owner responded:

  1. BINA48 does not have standing because the Legislature has not given non-humans, including computers, standing.
  2. Even if it did have standing, it should not prevail because there is no likelihood of winning on merits.
    • Cannot batter something without nerves.
    • Cannot cause distress if society thinks it is normal to unplug a machine.

Next Page


1. “Transbeman” is defined as a being who claims to have the rights and obligations associated with being human, but who may be beyond currently accepted notions of legal personhood. Examples of transbemans include beings who claim human rights but (a) are of computerized substrate, or (b) have been revived from biostasis, or (c) whose DNA varies significantly from human DNA.



1 2 3 4 next page>