Originally posted at >>>/qresearch/21361540 (061650ZAUG24) Notable: did this get decoded? KAMABLA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>202612
>>202625
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
ZHI GUO, et al.,
Plaintiff-Relators,
v.
==NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR
DEMOCRACY==, et al.,
Defendants
25
dissident community broke their connections with him. Id. ¶ 14. Thus, ICPC’s statements made
Guo unfit for his chosen profession—spreading and endorsing opposition against the Chinese
government. Because Guo’s allegations meet the required elements of a D.C. defamation claim,
the Court will enter liability against ICPC on Count VI for the two defamatory statements.
Which brings the Court to damages. Guo requests both general damages and special
damages. See Pls.’ Tort Mot. at 6. General damages compensate a plaintiff for intangible
injuries, such as his reputational harm. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 621 cmt. a (1977).
In contrast, special damages compensate losses of an “economic or pecuniary” nature. Id.
Because Guo has shown defamation per se, he does not have to prove general damages. See Dun
& Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 757 (1985).
Guo requests $300,000 in special damages. See Pls.’ Tort Mot. at 6. How he reaches that
figure is confusing. He says that his income decreased by $120,000 in the three years after ICPC
fired him in 2007. See id. He then posits that “assuming a conserPost too long. Click here to view the full text.