The Daily Digest, 3/1/11

It’s a bit of a coincidence that the reported case today is about an individual claiming to be a targeted individual. It’s coincidental because on Monday, February 28 and Tuesday March 1, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues is meeting in Washington, D.C. A number of individuals with similar claims have either provided comments during the Commission meeting or have submitted comments to the Commission. On Monday, February 28 the Commission held a public exploratory meeting on Genomic and Neurological Technologies. Today, on Tuesday, March 1, the Commission is holding its first public meeting on the protection of human subject in international and domestic research. You can follow the proceedings via webcast, and the transcripts from the meeting will also be posted online.

Targeted Individuals, Civil Suit
Stevens v. Unknown Employees of D.H.H.S., 2011 WL 666893 (Dist. D.C. 2011)
The court reviewed plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se on his civil complaint. The court granted the application, but dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were performing research against his will. According to plaintiff, the defendants had him “implanted with a transceiver chip” which can “monitor the functions of the body, control the organs of the body, … transmit their voice … so that only the implanted person can hear what they are saying, receive signals from a person’s brain and by use of [a] computer translate the signals into pictures or language,” and which can cause pain, sickness, and bleeding. In addition, the defendants have “attacked [him] by use of transmitting something like a laser.” Plaintiff demanded compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $100 million. The court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, including claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. “Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Having reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, the court concludes that its factual contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed.

About Nita A. Farahany

Professor of Law and Philosophy, Professor of Genome Sciences and Policy
This entry was posted in Civil, Neuroscience and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s