Section I:  A Canadian TV Case
(From: NLUO@msvax.mssm.edu)


About 15 years ago there was a program on Canadian TV which suggested that
a large number of places at Canadian medical schools were being taken by
Chinese instead of Canadians.  As it turned out, there were very few
Chinese citizens in Canadian medical schools.  The students in question
were mostly Canadians of Chinese ancestry.

Anyway this incident galvanized the Canadian Chinese community leading to
the formation of some organizations that I believe are still active in
defending the rights of people of Chinese ancestry[B.  They
successfully achieved redress for this wrong by the TV network involved
(CTV's program "W5.")

When this occurred I was living in China, but I remember reading an
article about it in a Hong Kong Magazine "The Seventies" (Qishi Niandai)
later re-named "The Nineties" (Jiushi Niandai).  I am sorry that I don't
have the proper reference or access to Chinese magazines here, but the
issue in question came out sometime in the years 1978-81.

I suggest that you might want to make reference to this very past incident
as there may be some useful parallels.




Section II:  An unrelated CBS Lawsuit
(From: zhu@sisko.ecs.umass.edu)
   
   CBS has settled for an undisclosed sum a $10 million lawsuit 
over airing the repossession of a San Francisco man's car on "The 
CBS Evening News", the USA Today reported today.  Herbert Brown had 
sued for invasion of privacy after a CBS crew, with the help of an 
auto repossessor, came into his back yard. He said he was humiliated 
by the segment. No comment from CBS.



Section III:  Marietta Sued In Age Bias Case

(From: zhu@sisko.ecs.umass.edu (Gao-Qiu Zhu))
	
	DENVER (AP) -- Martin Marietta Corp. has targeted older employees
for layoffs, the federal government alleges in an age-discrimination lawsuit.
	The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges 2,200 of
3,500 employees terminated by the company's astronautics group
between 1990 and 1992 were 40 years or older.
	The lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court contends the
aerospace company ``manipulated work assignments so as to insulate
as many younger employees as possible'' from layoffs.
	It also alleges the company ``promoted ... or condoned an
atmosphere of hostility to older employees'' that caused managers
to believe that they were expected to select older employees
whenever possible for termination.
	Martin Marietta spokesman Evan McCollum said the company's equal
employment opportunity program prohibits age discrimination. ``We
intend to vigorously defend against the suit,'' he said.
	The lawsuit is the largest class-action suit ever filed by the
Denver EEOC office and is one of the largest discrimination actions
taken by the agency nationally, said William Martinez, an EEOC
regional attorney.
	The lawsuit asks for lost wages, damages and potential
reinstatement of employees.
	The lawsuit was filed as the Bethesda, Md.-based Martin Marietta
is thinking of relocating up to 1,800 workers from San Diego to
Colorado. The workers are employed at Atlas, a subsidiary of
General Dynamics Corp., which Martin Marietta purchased.
	Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, which is based in Jefferson
County, west of the Denver area, earlier was named in an
age-discrimination suit filed by 115 former Martin Marietta
workers. A trial is set in January 1996.
 


Section IV:  A Recent Class Action

(From: hua7291@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (Mi Mi))

A recent class action case is the Denny's vs. its customers. Denny's
paid $50,000,000. Lawyers had collected several million legal fees.
Any customer then can claim a share of the compensation from the 
$50,000,000. We only want them to pay the legal fee and learn a lesson.
Stop stirfrying illegal/legal Chinese immigrant news!


Section V:  More spy cases

Ji Wang

I was also annoyed by Connie Chung's report about the Chinese spy ring in
the United States, as I was watching the CBS News last week.  It could be
really disturbing if the US Government steps up its efforts to control the
possible damages caused by the Chinese spies, which may create possible
extra burden for us in the future, but this is not the first time that a
national network covered and dealt with such a subject.  I still remember
that since earlier this year, I read reports from both NY Times and
Washington Post about Chinese spies in the US.  In one case, a guy in
Virginia was trying to send night-seeing devices to the Chinese military.
In another case, two Chinese engineers were arrested by police/FBI in a
dispute involving possible illegal acquisition of technology.  And, in the
broader circle, the coverage  of foreign spies burgalarizing US technology
information has intensified in recent years, and the CIA/FBI are helping the
US business to protect themselves from possible espionage.  I still remember
that the news coverage specifically pinpointed France and Germany for this
kind practices.  Also, two or three years ago, Ted Koppel, the Nightline
anchor of ABC, reported that all the gas stations in the US were being
monitored by the KGB systematically.



Section VI:  Connie Chung's programming philosophy

    Dong Xiao reported that Connie Chung has given an interview to a
talk show host Dave Breiner.  During the interview Connie Chung admitted that
the CBS programs are all "rating driven instead of jounalism driven", and she
just "try not to think about it".  

    She offered an explanation that they are "combating tabloid programs".




Section VII:  CBS Liable for Filming Search

Newsgroups: alt.prisons

[Paul Wright, the imprisoned editor of Prison Legal News, sent me the
following and asked me to distribute it widely on the the net because
there has been no coverage of this in the mainstream media.  Typos are
mine.  The article will appear in slightly different form in the next
PLN. PLN is available from P.O. Box 1684, Lake Worth, FL 33460. $12 for
subscriptions and $1 for a sample copy.  Dan Tenenbaum
(dante@microsoft.com)]

CBS Liable for Filming Search

In a landmark decision a federal court in New York has ruled that a CBS
film crew and Secret Service agents are liable for filming and
broadcasting a search of a private citizen's home. It is the first
reported court decision to hold a television broadcaster liable for
accompanying police agents on a search and filming it for the broadcast.
Anyone who has watched "Cops," "Hard Copy," "America's Most Wanted," or
any of the "real life" cop shows has seen the degrading and
propagandistic manner in which the victims of police repression are
portrayed. The broadcasters and the police can be sued and held liable
for such actions.

In 1992 Secret Service agents obtained a search warrant from a federal
court authorizing the search of an apartment shared by Babatunde Ayeni,
his wife Tawa, and small son Kayode, seeking evidence of a credit card
fraud operation. At 6PM on March 5, 1992, several Secret Service (SS)
agents forced their way into the Ayeni residence announcing they had a
warrant to conduct a search and ask questions. Only Mrs. Ayeni and her
son were home at the time. At about 8:15 four more SS agents arrived
with a film crew from the CBS news program "Street Stories." The CBS
film crew was never identified as CBS employees. The CBS crew followed
the SS agents and taped them as they searched the apartment. They took
closeup shots of the home's interior, its closets, personal letters,
family photos, etc. In the apartment's foyer an SS agent was interviewed
about the modus operandi of people who commit credit card frauds and the
tools of their trade. During this tape sequence the SS agent implied the
complicity of the other residence of the Ayeni apartment. No evidence
implicating the Ayenis in any illegal activity was found during the
search. One of the agents was filmed expressing his disappointment.

The Ayenis filed suit against the federal agents as well as CBS,
contending that the search and its filming violated their fourth
amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. In his
opinion Judge Weinstein agreed with the Ayenis. The defendants sought
qualified immunity, which the court denied.

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity government agents are entitled
to be free from liability for money damages even if they violate
constitutional rights as long as the right is not "well established" so
that a person of reasonable intelligence would know that the right
violated was recognized. In the case the court held that any reasonable
police agent would have known that it is unconstitutional to have
private citizens accompany them on a search to film and broadcast the
search.  The court relied on 18 U.S.C. sec. 3105 which requires that
search warrants be served by an official authorized to serve the warrant
and by no other person unless their assistance is required in conducting
the search, i.e. an accountant, forensic expert, etc., depending on the
nature of the offense being investigated. Thus, the SS agents should
have known that having a film crew taping their activities was illegal. 
Courts have previously held that taking photos is a "seizure" within the
meaning of the fourth amendment. CBS also claimed qualified immunity
from suit. The court notes that private entities are not entitled to
qualified immunity from suit, it only applies to government actors.

The court used harsh language in condemning the actions by the SS and
CBS. "The search warrant was issued to agent Mottola and other agents of
the Unites States Secret Service for precise and limited purposes. It
authorized their entry into the Ayeni's home only to search for items
related to credit card fraud. Agent Mottola's act of facilitating the
CBS camera crew's entry into the apartment and its filming of the search
exceeded the scope of the warrant. It was allegedly in clear violation
then well [sic] established fourth amendment principles.  ..it is the
equivalent of a rogue policeman using his official position to break
into a home in order to steal objects for his own profit or that of
another."

For immunity purposes it would be "...grossly unreasonable for a
government agent not to have known that the presence of private persons
he invited in so that they could titillate and entertain others was
beyond the scope of what was lawfully authorized by the warrant.

"CBS had no greater right than that of a thief to be in the home, to
'capture' the scene of the search on film and to remove the photographic
record. The images, though created by the camera, are a part of the
household; they could not be removed without permission or official
right....The television tape was a seizure of private property,
information, for non-governmental purposes."

It is entirely possible that litigation by the victims of this type of
police and media activity may be able to halt the spread of "police TV."
Findings of liability against both police and the broadcaster will see
to it that police activity is not broadcast to "entertain and
titillate." So if you've been filmed against your will during a police
search you too can sue for an invasion of your privacy and your fourth
amendment rights. The court decision is reported at: Ayeni v. CBS, Inc.,
848 F. Supp 362 (ED NY 1994).