正文
我们起诉CNN的诉状摘要:
此诉讼发生后, 有朋友问: “为什么在密苏里起诉?”, “下一步怎样?”
任何一个法庭判决有效的前提有三条:
Personal Jurisdiction
Subject Matter
Sufficient Notice
CNN 在密苏里播放, 在密苏里有利益, 因此,密苏里的法庭对CNN有Personal Jurisdiction. 其实,美国个个州的法庭对CNN都有Personal Jurisdiction. 原则上,对CNN的起诉也可以在中国,英国的法庭.
种族歧视是联邦法, 因此,起诉CNN选在联邦法院.
传票作为Notice, 已于周一发出,CNN有30天时间作出最初回答,当然认罪最好.
诉状有四条, 摘要如下.具体解释及后续发展,会及时向大家汇报
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.
忙着和朋友一起诉CNN。我们比纽约海明律师事务所还早！
请查网页：
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-moedce/case_no-4:2008cv00548/case_id-92760/
案号： The case number is: 4:08-cv-00548-CDP
法官： The judge assigned is: Catherine D. Perry
没时间，请懂英文的支援者帮忙翻译一下！
请大家放心, 我们会保护我们自己. 同时请广为传递!
支持的信件邮寄： lawsuitcnn@gmail.com
此诉讼发生后, 有朋友问: “为什么在密苏里起诉?”, “下一步怎样?”
任何一个法庭判决有效的前提有三条:
Personal Jurisdiction
Subject Matter
Sufficient Notice
CNN 在密苏里播放, 在密苏里有利益, 因此,密苏里的法庭对CNN有Personal Jurisdiction. 其实,美国个个州的法庭对CNN都有Personal Jurisdiction. 原则上,对CNN的起诉也可以在中国,英国的法庭.
种族歧视是联邦法, 因此,起诉CNN选在联邦法院.
传票作为Notice, 已于周一发出,CNN有30天时间作出最初回答,当然认罪最好.
诉状有四条, 摘要如下.具体解释及后续发展,会及时向大家汇报
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.
忙着和朋友一起诉CNN。我们比纽约海明律师事务所还早！
请查网页：
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-moedce/case_no-4:2008cv00548/case_id-92760/
案号： The case number is: 4:08-cv-00548-CDP
法官： The judge assigned is: Catherine D. Perry
没时间，请懂英文的支援者帮忙翻译一下！
请大家放心, 我们会保护我们自己. 同时请广为传递!
支持的信件邮寄： lawsuitcnn@gmail.com
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
