Volume 2, Issue 2
2nd Quarter, 2007


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

Susan Fonseca-Klein, Esq.

Page 5 of 5

CITATIONS

 

Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure – General

 

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/
March 12, 2007 4:25PM EST 

Smoyer v. Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce, 517 So.2d 585 (Ala. 1987)

“In order to constitute consideration for a promise, there must have been an act, a forbearance, a detriment, or a destruction of a legal right, or a return promise, bargained for and given in exchange for the promise.”


Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Bear, 220 Ala. 491 (1929)

“An oral contract is not entered into until the minds of the parties have met on all essential elements.”

b>Wilson v. Vulcan Rivet and Bolt Corp., 439 So.2d 65 (Ala. 1983)

“In the absence of proof of a promise or agreement, and consideration, it was proper to direct a verdict in favor of Smith and Vulcan on the count alleging breach of contract.”

Ex Parte Governor Fob James, 836 So.2d 2d 813 (Ala. 2002)

"When a party without standing purports to commence an action, the trial court acquires no subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Ex Parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So.2d 2d 226, 229 (Ala. 2004)

“[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”

Hiller Investments Inc. V. Insultech Group, Inc., 1051024 (Ala. 11-3-2006)

"(b) Basis for Out-of-State Service. An appropriate basis exists for service of process outside of this state upon a person or entity in any action in this state when the person or entity has such contacts with this state that the prosecution of the action against the person or entity in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or he Constitution of the United States. . . ."

This rule extends the personal jurisdiction of Alabama courts to the limit of due process under the United States and Alabama Constitutions. When applying Rule 4.2(b), this Court has interpreted the due process guaranteed under the Alabama Constitution as coextensive with that guaranteed under the United States Constitution.”

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a forum state to subject a nonresident defendant to its courts only when that defendant has sufficient `minimum contacts' with the forum state.”

“…General contacts, which give rise to general personal jurisdiction, consist of the defendant's contacts with the forum state that are unrelated to the cause of action and that are both "continuous and systematic."


International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

“The Due Process Claus of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a forum state to subject a nonresident defendant to its court only when the defendant has sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state.”

http://supreme.justia.com/us/326/310/case.html   March 13, 2007 12:01PM EST

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)

“The critical question with regard to the nonresident defendant’s contacts is whether the contacts are such that the nonresident defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court’ in the forum state.” Quoting World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. WOODSON, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/462/case.html   March 13, 2007 12:04PM EST

World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. WOODSON, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)

“The critical question with regard to the nonresident defendant’s contacts is whether the contacts are such that the nonresident defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court’ in the forum state.”

“When a [defendant] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State,' . . . it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there' and the due-process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment are fulfilled.”

http://supreme.justia.com/us/444/286/    March 13, 2007 12:07PM EST

Cook’s Pest Control v. Rebar, 852 So.2d 730 (Ala. 2002)

“Ala. Code 1975 ("[E]very corporation . . . has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs"); Black's Law Dictionary 1162 (7th ed. 1999) (One definition of "person" is "[a]n entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being," and the definition of "artificial person" is "[a]n entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being").”

Keelean v. Central Bank of the South, 544 So.2d 153 (Ala. 1989)

1) the determination of whether it is foreseeable to that nonresident defendant that he will be sued in this state; and

2) the determination of the degree of contact that the nonresident defendant has with this state.

"The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 9, 415, (1984)

“Specific contacts, which give rise to specific [personal] jurisdiction, consist of the defendant's contacts with the forum state that are related to the cause of action.”

Steel Processors, Inc. v. Sue’s Pumps, Inc. Rentals, 622 So.2d 910, 913 (Ala. 1993)

"…a mere one-time purchaser of goods from a seller in a forum state cannot be constitutionally subject to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the courts of the forum state."

"[T]he relevant facts and attendant circumstances must be examined and the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation analyzed to determine if the defendant has sufficient 'minimum contacts' so that 'the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."


Barrington v. Barrington, 76 So. 81 (Ala. 1917)

“…a statute which gives a new legal effect to conduct or conditions occurring or existing prior to its enactment, thereby imposing upon any person unanticipated disabilities or alterations of legal status, is retrospective in a sense which is odious to the law, and, as to such operation, is strongly disfavored by the courts…”

Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990)

“Article I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from passing any "ex post facto Law.” The Ex Post Facto Clause is directed at laws that "retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts."

http://supreme.justia.com/us/497/37/case.html  March 13, 2007 11:29AM EST

Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2006)

“Article I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from passing any "ex post facto Law.” The Ex Post Facto Clause is directed at laws that "retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts."

Mazer v. Jackson Ins. Agency, 340 So.2d 770 (Ala. 1976)

“The purpose of equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel is to promote equity and justice in an individual case by preventing a party from asserting rights under a general technical rule of law when his own conduct renders the assertion of such rights contrary to equity and good conscience.”

J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So.2d 198 (Ala. 1999)

“The purpose of the clean hands doctrine is to prevent a party from asserting his, her, or its rights under the law when that party's own wrongful conduct renders the assertion of such legal rights "contrary to equity and good conscience."

Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100 (1981)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/451/100/index.html   March 13, 2007 11:58AM EST

"By its own unaided force and effect,' the Thirteenth Amendment `abolished slavery' and established universal freedom.”




Bios

 

 Professor Gene Natale, J.D., CPA, Moot Court Justice, Melbourne, FL.
Professor Natale is currently a teacher with Keiser College in Melbourne, Florida, and has taught Paralegal and Business Law classes to hundreds of students. Prof. Natale’s appointments include: Summer Assistant U.S. Attorney; Assistant District Attorney; Examining Attorney for the Department of Investigations; Village Board Trustee; and Associate Village Justice.



 Will Rosellini, J.D., MBA, MS, Dallas, TX Attorney for the Plaintiff: Charlie Fairfax
Mr. Rosellini currently holds a JD, MBA, and an MS in Accounting. He is presently working to complete a dual Master’s in Computational Biology and Neuroscience, and is also the 2005 winner of the Foley and Lardner Intellectual Property Writing Competition.



 Charlie Fairfax, Plaintiff
Fictional character, Charlie Fairfax, a Foreign War Veteran and right-arm amputee, is creatively portrayed by Mr. Bob Martin, IT Administrator at Terasem Movement, Inc., Space Coast Office, FL.



 Susan Fonseca-Klein, Esq., San Francisco, CA Attorney for the Defendant: BINA48
Mrs. Fonseca-Klein is an attorney and CEO of the consulting firm, FONSECA LLC and Co-Founder of the Immortality Institute, San Francisco, CA whose main mission is to conquer the blight of involuntary death.



 BINA48, Defendant, Conscious Computer, WWW
(Breakthrough Intelligence via Neural Architecture, 48 exaflops per second), Conscious Computer, a transbeman entity (a person embodied in a computer), created in 2002 by the fictional Exabit Corporation.


1 2 3 4 5 <Back to Issue Contents