正文
我們起訴CNN的訴狀摘要:
此訴訟發生後, 有朋友問: “為什麽在密蘇裏起訴?”, “下一步怎樣?”
任何一個法庭判決有效的前提有三條:
Personal Jurisdiction
Subject Matter
Sufficient Notice
CNN 在密蘇裏播放, 在密蘇裏有利益, 因此,密蘇裏的法庭對CNN有Personal Jurisdiction. 其實,美國個個州的法庭對CNN都有Personal Jurisdiction. 原則上,對CNN的起訴也可以在中國,英國的法庭.
種族歧視是聯邦法, 因此,起訴CNN選在聯邦法院.
傳票作為Notice, 已於周一發出,CNN有30天時間作出最初回答,當然認罪最好.
訴狀有四條, 摘要如下.具體解釋及後續發展,會及時向大家匯報
COUNT I
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
17. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
18. Because CNN is either paid to provide television programs or under the Service Agreement to provide the contents of those television programs through www.cnn.com, CNN is under contract to provide television programs to its viewers.
19. CNN acknowledged that Jack Cafferty’s comments were to “provide robust opinions that generate debate”. CNN had the knowledge and participated in Jack Cafferty’s activities. It is against the race of Chinese when Jack Cafferty called Chinese as a“bunch of goons and thugs”. Plaintiff was hurt because he is a Chinese. Thus, CNN discriminately hurt Chinese by providing racial discrimination comments when it performed its contract to provide the television programs. CNN discriminates against Chinese based upon race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter its judgment declaring that the Jack Cafferty’s comments made in CNN’s television program regarding Chinese are racial discrimination and enjoining CNN from employing him as a commentator.
COUNT II NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION
20. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
21. CNN acknowledged and participated in Jack Cafferty’s deion of Chinese products as “junk”. CNN also ignored the thousands of people\' s support for Beijing Olympics in its coverage for the San
Francisco Olympic torch relay. CNN is biasing to China originated products and pro-China activities. Plaintiff, as a Chinese originated from China, was unable to receive balanced coverage about his home country from CNN. Thus CNN discriminated against China originated viewers by not providing them balanced coverage about their home country when it performed,its contract to provide the television programs. CNN commits country origin discrimination under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Court to enter its judgment declaring that Jack
Cafferty’s comments made in CNN news programs regarding Chinese products are national origin discrimination and enjoining CNN from employing him as a commentator.
COUNT III
CNN IS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF’S MENTAL SUFFERING UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
22. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23. CNN’s products – the commentary made by Jack
Cafferty caused mental harm and suffering to Plaintiff. The injury was caused by the race and
national origin discrimination comments at the time when CNN’s television program was watched. And
Plaintiff could not avoid the injury because he did not know CNN’s commentary would have been like this.
Therefore CNN is liable for his injury under the doctrine of strict products liability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter its judgment forcing that CNN makes an
unconditional apology to Plaintiff with respects to the comments made by Jack Cafferty in its television program regarding Chinese, China and Chinese products.
COUNT IV
JACK CAFFERTY’S COMMENTS ARE DEFAMATORY AND LIBEL ACTIONS UNDER MISSOURI DEFAMATION LAW
24. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
25. CNN acknowledged that Jack Cafferty’s comments were to “provide robust opinions that generate debate”. CNN encouraged Jack Cafferty to make race and national origin discrimination comments. Therefore, CNN has actual malice for Jack Cafferty to make comments.
26. Plaintiff alleges that Jack Cafferty’s comments made in the CNN’s\' television program regarding China, Chinese and Chinese products are defamatory. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter its judgment declaring Jack Cafferty’s comments regarding Chinese, China and Chinese products are defamatory and forcing that CNN makes an unconditional apology to Plaintiff with respects to Jack Cafferty’s said comments.
忙著和朋友一起訴CNN。我們比紐約海明律師事務所還早！
請查網頁：
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-moedce/case_no-4:2008cv00548/case_id-92760/
案號： The case number is: 4:08-cv-00548-CDP
法官： The judge assigned is: Catherine D. Perry
沒時間，請懂英文的支援者幫忙翻譯一下！
請大家放心, 我們會保護我們自己. 同時請廣為傳遞!
支持的信件郵寄： lawsuitcnn@gmail.com
此訴訟發生後, 有朋友問: “為什麽在密蘇裏起訴?”, “下一步怎樣?”
任何一個法庭判決有效的前提有三條:
Personal Jurisdiction
Subject Matter
Sufficient Notice
CNN 在密蘇裏播放, 在密蘇裏有利益, 因此,密蘇裏的法庭對CNN有Personal Jurisdiction. 其實,美國個個州的法庭對CNN都有Personal Jurisdiction. 原則上,對CNN的起訴也可以在中國,英國的法庭.
種族歧視是聯邦法, 因此,起訴CNN選在聯邦法院.
傳票作為Notice, 已於周一發出,CNN有30天時間作出最初回答,當然認罪最好.
訴狀有四條, 摘要如下.具體解釋及後續發展,會及時向大家匯報
COUNT I
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
17. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
18. Because CNN is either paid to provide television programs or under the Service Agreement to provide the contents of those television programs through www.cnn.com, CNN is under contract to provide television programs to its viewers.
19. CNN acknowledged that Jack Cafferty’s comments were to “provide robust opinions that generate debate”. CNN had the knowledge and participated in Jack Cafferty’s activities. It is against the race of Chinese when Jack Cafferty called Chinese as a“bunch of goons and thugs”. Plaintiff was hurt because he is a Chinese. Thus, CNN discriminately hurt Chinese by providing racial discrimination comments when it performed its contract to provide the television programs. CNN discriminates against Chinese based upon race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter its judgment declaring that the Jack Cafferty’s comments made in CNN’s television program regarding Chinese are racial discrimination and enjoining CNN from employing him as a commentator.
COUNT II NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION
20. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
21. CNN acknowledged and participated in Jack Cafferty’s deion of Chinese products as “junk”. CNN also ignored the thousands of people\' s support for Beijing Olympics in its coverage for the San
Francisco Olympic torch relay. CNN is biasing to China originated products and pro-China activities. Plaintiff, as a Chinese originated from China, was unable to receive balanced coverage about his home country from CNN. Thus CNN discriminated against China originated viewers by not providing them balanced coverage about their home country when it performed,its contract to provide the television programs. CNN commits country origin discrimination under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Court to enter its judgment declaring that Jack
Cafferty’s comments made in CNN news programs regarding Chinese products are national origin discrimination and enjoining CNN from employing him as a commentator.
COUNT III
CNN IS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF’S MENTAL SUFFERING UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
22. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23. CNN’s products – the commentary made by Jack
Cafferty caused mental harm and suffering to Plaintiff. The injury was caused by the race and
national origin discrimination comments at the time when CNN’s television program was watched. And
Plaintiff could not avoid the injury because he did not know CNN’s commentary would have been like this.
Therefore CNN is liable for his injury under the doctrine of strict products liability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter its judgment forcing that CNN makes an
unconditional apology to Plaintiff with respects to the comments made by Jack Cafferty in its television program regarding Chinese, China and Chinese products.
COUNT IV
JACK CAFFERTY’S COMMENTS ARE DEFAMATORY AND LIBEL ACTIONS UNDER MISSOURI DEFAMATION LAW
24. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
25. CNN acknowledged that Jack Cafferty’s comments were to “provide robust opinions that generate debate”. CNN encouraged Jack Cafferty to make race and national origin discrimination comments. Therefore, CNN has actual malice for Jack Cafferty to make comments.
26. Plaintiff alleges that Jack Cafferty’s comments made in the CNN’s\' television program regarding China, Chinese and Chinese products are defamatory. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter its judgment declaring Jack Cafferty’s comments regarding Chinese, China and Chinese products are defamatory and forcing that CNN makes an unconditional apology to Plaintiff with respects to Jack Cafferty’s said comments.
忙著和朋友一起訴CNN。我們比紐約海明律師事務所還早！
請查網頁：
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-moedce/case_no-4:2008cv00548/case_id-92760/
案號： The case number is: 4:08-cv-00548-CDP
法官： The judge assigned is: Catherine D. Perry
沒時間，請懂英文的支援者幫忙翻譯一下！
請大家放心, 我們會保護我們自己. 同時請廣為傳遞!
支持的信件郵寄： lawsuitcnn@gmail.com
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
