FROM ONPOINT NEWS
A Los Angeles judge has stepped down from a case alleging Miley Cyrus discriminated against Asian Pacific Islanders with a facial expression after the plaintiff accused him of racial bias for using the word “Oriental” in a court hearing.
Superior Court Judge Robert L. Hess's language could hardly have been more politically incorrect in the context of Lucie J. Kim's' lawsuit against Cyrus, which alleges the teen idol slurred Asian Pacific Islanders by slanting her eyes when she posed for a photograph with a group of friends.
At a June 4 hearing, Hess expressed “grave doubts” about the merits of the case but gave Kim “one more chance” to amend her complaint and show Cyrus violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. He made his verbal faux pas while describing the photo at issue in the case.
The people in the photo, he said, included “Orientals and non-Orientals” and Cyrus's gesture “could be construed as mocking or disparaging of persons of Oriental ancestry.”
Kim filed court papers a week later in which she said Hess's “use of the word 'Oriental' is akin to using the word 'N---er' or 'Negro' when referring to African Americans” and “reflects racial bias” toward Asians.
In refusing to acknowledge that Cyrus' “act of slanting her eyes was a racially offensive gesture,” she argued, Hess “was influenced by [his] own bias against Asians.” That bias “prevent[s] this court from being fair and impartial in this case,” she said.
Hess recused himself last month and the case is now assigned to Judge Ronald Sohigian, who will hear Cyrus' demurrer to the amended complaint Aug. 26. Sohigian's view of the case, though, is unlikely to differ from his predecessor's.
The plaintiff's theory, Hess said, is “an extraordinary expansion of what I understand to be the case law in this area” and “would essentially subject persons to Unruh Act liability for anything that might offend, in practically any context.”
Kim claims Cyrus's slant-eyed gesture violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal for a “business establishment of any kind whatsoever” to discriminate against anyone based on race, color, ancestry or national origin.
In the amended complaint, she cites the use of Cyrus' image on lunchboxes and backpacks, her registration of her name as a trademark, and appearances at the inauguration of President Obama and on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” as evidence that she is an establishment with “a permanent settled position in life and business.”
But Cyrus argues that Kim cannot salvage her case with “superficial changes” to the complaint. “[A] facial expression, which is protected by the freedom of speech, is not actionable under the Unruh Act,” she says in her demurrer, and “being offended by a facial expression seen on an internet news site does not constitute [a] denial” of access to a public accomodation.
AND DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE CALL ME AN ORIENTAL, BITCH!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
IS MILEY A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT? PARK YOURSELF HERE!
FROM ONPOINT NEWS
However ridiculous it may seem, a $4 billion class action suit alleging teen idol Miley Cyrus discriminated against Asian Pacific Islanders with a facial expression does present the novel legal issue of whether a celebrity is a “business establishment.”
With estimated earnings of $25 million for the year ended June 2008, there's no doubt Cyrus is a big business. The suit filed last week by a Los Angeles woman alleges she is a “business establishment” liable under California's Unruh Act for slanting her eyes when she recently posed for a photograph with a group of friends.
Cyrus's “racist, prejudicial, stereotypical gesture ... specifically targeted persons of Asian Pacific Islander descent based on their race, color, ancestry and national origin,” the complaint says. Plaintiff Lucie Kim claims to represent a class of more than one million Asian Pacific Islanders living in California.
The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination by a “business establishment of any kind whatsoever.” The term “business establishment” is not defined, but courts have applied the law to everything from restaurants and hotels to country clubs and apartment buildings.
“The word 'establishment,' as broadly defined, includes not only a fixed location, such as the 'place where one is permanently fixed for residence or business,' but also a permanent 'commercial force or organization' or 'a permanent settled position (as in life or business),'” the California Supreme Court said in Burks v. Poppy Construction Co., 57 Cal.2d 463 (1962).
Kim draws on that language in arguing that Cyrus “is a business establishment within the scope of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51.”
The pop star is engaged in an “occupation or trade,” the suit says, and Due to her notoriety and active marketing of her Image, Cyrus is in fact a commercial force or organization and currently holds a permanent settled position in the entertainment industry, which settled position is confirmed by Cyrus' appearance at the Grammys, television shows, internet presence, music and appearance at other entertainment awards programs. Whether anyone has a “permanent settled position” in the entertainment business is an arguable point. But as a matter of law, Kim is probably stretching the Unruh Act too far.
In Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, 17 Cal.4th 670 (1998), California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk concluded that “the phrase 'business establishments' in section 51 means areas of activity, whether or not in public view, and whether or not at a physical location, that encompass proprietor-patron relationships.”
Proprietor-patron relationships, he said, “involve the providing of goods or services, nongratuitously, for a price or fee, in the course of relatively noncontinuous, nonpersonal, and nonsocial dealings.”
While Cyrus's fans pay a price or fee for her services, no California case has defined the entertainer-fan relationship as a proprietor-patron relationship. And if the state Legislature had intended the Unruh Act to prohibit discrimination by an individual organized as a business, it could certainly have specified as much.
The municipal code of Davis, Calif., for example, defines “business establishment” as “Any person, however organized, which furnishes goods, services or accommodations to the general public.”
However ridiculous it may seem, a $4 billion class action suit alleging teen idol Miley Cyrus discriminated against Asian Pacific Islanders with a facial expression does present the novel legal issue of whether a celebrity is a “business establishment.”
With estimated earnings of $25 million for the year ended June 2008, there's no doubt Cyrus is a big business. The suit filed last week by a Los Angeles woman alleges she is a “business establishment” liable under California's Unruh Act for slanting her eyes when she recently posed for a photograph with a group of friends.
Cyrus's “racist, prejudicial, stereotypical gesture ... specifically targeted persons of Asian Pacific Islander descent based on their race, color, ancestry and national origin,” the complaint says. Plaintiff Lucie Kim claims to represent a class of more than one million Asian Pacific Islanders living in California.
The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination by a “business establishment of any kind whatsoever.” The term “business establishment” is not defined, but courts have applied the law to everything from restaurants and hotels to country clubs and apartment buildings.
“The word 'establishment,' as broadly defined, includes not only a fixed location, such as the 'place where one is permanently fixed for residence or business,' but also a permanent 'commercial force or organization' or 'a permanent settled position (as in life or business),'” the California Supreme Court said in Burks v. Poppy Construction Co., 57 Cal.2d 463 (1962).
Kim draws on that language in arguing that Cyrus “is a business establishment within the scope of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51.”
The pop star is engaged in an “occupation or trade,” the suit says, and Due to her notoriety and active marketing of her Image, Cyrus is in fact a commercial force or organization and currently holds a permanent settled position in the entertainment industry, which settled position is confirmed by Cyrus' appearance at the Grammys, television shows, internet presence, music and appearance at other entertainment awards programs. Whether anyone has a “permanent settled position” in the entertainment business is an arguable point. But as a matter of law, Kim is probably stretching the Unruh Act too far.
In Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, 17 Cal.4th 670 (1998), California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk concluded that “the phrase 'business establishments' in section 51 means areas of activity, whether or not in public view, and whether or not at a physical location, that encompass proprietor-patron relationships.”
Proprietor-patron relationships, he said, “involve the providing of goods or services, nongratuitously, for a price or fee, in the course of relatively noncontinuous, nonpersonal, and nonsocial dealings.”
While Cyrus's fans pay a price or fee for her services, no California case has defined the entertainer-fan relationship as a proprietor-patron relationship. And if the state Legislature had intended the Unruh Act to prohibit discrimination by an individual organized as a business, it could certainly have specified as much.
The municipal code of Davis, Calif., for example, defines “business establishment” as “Any person, however organized, which furnishes goods, services or accommodations to the general public.”
Friday, April 24, 2009
AngryAsianMan Give His Sage Legal Opinion
Miley Cyrus's lawyers have filed a response to the lawsuit, and the armies of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have moved ever closer to vanquishing as many Jack in the Boxes on a Sunday morning as is possible. Oh fucking No!
And now the world has been confronted with a Sage Legal Opinion here
I guess AngryAsianMan is uncomfortable with the right to reply and is the ultimate sort of CCP type Stooge, because his blog allows no one to comment on it. And I guess that those daunting three dots mean that he pretends to know a lot more than he actually does.
Stay tuned to Miley Cyrus Lawsuit Watch, and if you cant bear to watch, then wear your Slanties, because only here you can see the result of Miley Cyrus v AngryAsianMan's friends and see this very angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry dude eat Crow, or is that Cat and Rat! Or Tigers Penis? Or Sharks Fin? Or Monkey Brains?
And now the world has been confronted with a Sage Legal Opinion here
Wait, so basically, she's saying if Asians are offended by mocking, racist gestures, then they just stop being a fan. Oh, it's as easy that, right? Once again, it's all on us. The "offended." Obviously, this is not over. I'm sure there will be more on the Miley lawsuit to come...
I guess AngryAsianMan is uncomfortable with the right to reply and is the ultimate sort of CCP type Stooge, because his blog allows no one to comment on it. And I guess that those daunting three dots mean that he pretends to know a lot more than he actually does.
Stay tuned to Miley Cyrus Lawsuit Watch, and if you cant bear to watch, then wear your Slanties, because only here you can see the result of Miley Cyrus v AngryAsianMan's friends and see this very angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry dude eat Crow, or is that Cat and Rat! Or Tigers Penis? Or Sharks Fin? Or Monkey Brains?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
MILEY HITS BACK!
FROM ONPOINTNEWS
Teen idol Miley Cyrus has attacked a $4 billion class action suit alleging she discriminated against Asian Pacific Islanders with a facial expression as “manifestly frivolous” and an attempt to “extort a settlement” from her.
According to a demurrer filed by Cyrus last week, the suit is “well outside the purpose and goal” of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and seeks to punish her for a “statement” that was not directed at plaintiff Lucie J. Kim and did not deny her full and equal access to any “business establishment” as defined under the act.
Kim alleged in her complaint that Cyrus is a “business establishment” liable for slanting her eyes when she posed for a photograph with a group of friends.
“Plaintiff's Complaint is fatally defective and frivolous, and constitutes the very scenario the California Supreme Court warned of where a plaintiff attempts to extort a settlement based on unsupported factual allegations,” the demurrer says.
In Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal.4th 160 (2007), the court found that a nightclub violated the Unruh Act by charging men a higher admission price than women, but said it was concerned about “the potential for abusive litigation being brought under the Act.”
Kim claims to represent a class of more than one million Asian Pacific Islanders living in California. Cyrus's “racist, prejudicial, stereotypical gesture ... specifically targeted persons of Asian Pacific Islander descent based on their race, color, ancestry and national origin,” the suit said.
No Unruh Act case has defined a celebrity as a “business establishment” but Kim argued that the term applies to Cyrus because she is “a commercial force or organization and currently holds a permanent settled position in the entertainment industry.”
Cyrus attorney Bryan M. Sullivan says in the demurrer that the case should be dismissed because the allegedly discriminatory act of eye-slanting did not relate to the “providing of 'accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services' to the public,” as required by the Unruh Act.
Under Kim's logic, Sullivan argues,
[A]ny celebrity could be sued under the Unruh Act for any public or private comment insensitive to an individual's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. This is a slippery slope prudently best avoided, as it would open the floodgates of litigation by permitting the filing of lawsuits over mere expression.
A hearing on the demurrer is set April 24 before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert L. Hess and Kim probably has about a one-in-four-billion chance of avoiding a dismissal with prejudice.
Teen idol Miley Cyrus has attacked a $4 billion class action suit alleging she discriminated against Asian Pacific Islanders with a facial expression as “manifestly frivolous” and an attempt to “extort a settlement” from her.
According to a demurrer filed by Cyrus last week, the suit is “well outside the purpose and goal” of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and seeks to punish her for a “statement” that was not directed at plaintiff Lucie J. Kim and did not deny her full and equal access to any “business establishment” as defined under the act.
Kim alleged in her complaint that Cyrus is a “business establishment” liable for slanting her eyes when she posed for a photograph with a group of friends.
“Plaintiff's Complaint is fatally defective and frivolous, and constitutes the very scenario the California Supreme Court warned of where a plaintiff attempts to extort a settlement based on unsupported factual allegations,” the demurrer says.
In Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal.4th 160 (2007), the court found that a nightclub violated the Unruh Act by charging men a higher admission price than women, but said it was concerned about “the potential for abusive litigation being brought under the Act.”
Kim claims to represent a class of more than one million Asian Pacific Islanders living in California. Cyrus's “racist, prejudicial, stereotypical gesture ... specifically targeted persons of Asian Pacific Islander descent based on their race, color, ancestry and national origin,” the suit said.
No Unruh Act case has defined a celebrity as a “business establishment” but Kim argued that the term applies to Cyrus because she is “a commercial force or organization and currently holds a permanent settled position in the entertainment industry.”
Cyrus attorney Bryan M. Sullivan says in the demurrer that the case should be dismissed because the allegedly discriminatory act of eye-slanting did not relate to the “providing of 'accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services' to the public,” as required by the Unruh Act.
Under Kim's logic, Sullivan argues,
[A]ny celebrity could be sued under the Unruh Act for any public or private comment insensitive to an individual's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. This is a slippery slope prudently best avoided, as it would open the floodgates of litigation by permitting the filing of lawsuits over mere expression.
A hearing on the demurrer is set April 24 before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert L. Hess and Kim probably has about a one-in-four-billion chance of avoiding a dismissal with prejudice.
Monday, March 23, 2009
DO THE MILEY WITHOUT USING YOUR HANDS!
SLANTIES SUNGLASSES based on old Inuit eyewear, are the new weapon in the war against Miley Cyrus Temple Massaging Technique.
Now the BARBARIAN WESTERNERS can SLANT their eyes without any effort, leaving their hands free TO ACTUALLY TOUCH OUR SISTERS AND DAUGHTERS AS THEY PARTY ON IN TOKYO, SEOUL AND HONG KONG ISLAND...
SEE WHAT THIS ANGRY DUDE HAS TO SAY ABOUT THIS INVENTION.
WHAT, NO WAY TO POST A RESPONSE ON HIS SITE?
HOW GLORIOUS!
THE YANGMAN SPEAKETH!
YANGMAN SPEAKETH THE TROOF
60 BILLION ASIANS WILL UNITE IN THE WAR AGAINST MILEY CYRUS
THERE WILL BE GLORIOUS SMACKDOWNS OF 4 TO 1 IN THE LOCAL "PEKING PALACE", JUST AFTER YOU ENJOYMENT OF SPECIAL SUBWAY RABBIT WITH RICE!
IT WOULD BE GLORIOUS!
YANGMAN'S SPEECH IS IN GLORIOUS FIGHTING RESPONSES TO THE BARBARIAN SPEECH OF THE INFIDEL BIGRANTER HERE
60 BILLION ASIANS WILL UNITE IN THE WAR AGAINST MILEY CYRUS
THERE WILL BE GLORIOUS SMACKDOWNS OF 4 TO 1 IN THE LOCAL "PEKING PALACE", JUST AFTER YOU ENJOYMENT OF SPECIAL SUBWAY RABBIT WITH RICE!
IT WOULD BE GLORIOUS!
YANGMAN'S SPEECH IS IN GLORIOUS FIGHTING RESPONSES TO THE BARBARIAN SPEECH OF THE INFIDEL BIGRANTER HERE
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Miley Cyrus Causes Hate To Multiply
Just watch and see why! ITS SO FREAKIN AMAZING THE HATE CAUSED - HATE HATE HATE AARRGGH!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)