Class Action Lawsuit vs Department of State

[cosmo.kramer101]

...and cause them to move forward with the new criteria come DV-2013 ...

yeah, or like adding a question to the DS-230 sworn statement:
Have you ever filed (or was a part of) a lawsuit against the Department Of State - Yes ; NO
(if YES - then immigrant visa is denied) (just kidding)

come on , people. relax! there's nothing we can do - they own our a**es - they will do whatever they want : give a winning, revoke a winning, give a visa/greencard/citizenship, revoke a visa/greencard/citizenship

it's just so hard to believe that if this computer glitch passed the developing and testing stages - in that case they're just bunch of yappies...

 

[bentlebee]

yeah, or like adding a question to the DS-230 sworn statement:
Have you ever filed (or was a part of) a lawsuit against the Department Of State - Yes ; NO
(if YES - then immigrant visa is denied) (just kidding)

come on , people. relax! there's nothing we can do - they own our a**es - they will do whatever they want : give a winning, revoke a winning, give a visa/greencard/citizenship, revoke a visa/greencard/citizenship

it's just so hard to believe that if this computer glitch passed the developing and testing stages - in that case they're just bunch of yappies...

All returned papers will be shredded...so no worries about what you filled out.

 

[paulzorn]

Chameleon, you made the press!!!

Chameleon, congrats, man! You got published on BBC World.

<WEB ADDRESS>/mundo/noticias/2011/05/110513_eeuu_visa_loteria_error_cch.shtml

(where WEB ADDRESS is bbc.co.uk)

A friend of mine just sent me the original in Spanish. Of course, you can always use google translate.

 

[dv2012x]

The main point here is that: with or without a computer error, the selection is still RANDOM.

As this situation is an "error", nobody knew about it. As a result, nobody could gain from it. Nobody knew that applying on the earlier dates would increase your chance. As a result the whole process is still RANDOM.

The selection process is a blackbox. The internal coding is NOT known. As a result people applied at any random time within the given time limits. The code could have selected applicants from any application time period.

This "error" has just ADDED to the RANDOMNESS.

Think of it like this: Assume that each application is a 1 penny coin dropped in a big jar. Also, assume the coins are made of iron. The selection is to be done by opening a hole at the bottom of the jar and let some random coins fall out. The coins falling out are the selected ones.

By "error" there is also a magnet in the jar as well. When the small hole is opened at the bottom of the jar it opens just below the magnet; the few coins (selectees) start falling through the hole. The magnet with all the coins stuck to it also falls through. Nobody knew that there was a magnet ("error") in the jar. So nobody tried to throw their coin next to the magnet.

The process is STILL COMPLETELY RANDOM.

Noone has been favoured.

There is no reason for the voiding.


Please let me know if you disagree.

 

[chamele0n]

The main point here is that: with or without a computer error, the selection is still RANDOM.

As this situation is an "error", nobody knew about it. As a result, nobody could gain from it. Nobody knew that applying on the earlier dates would increase your chance. As a result the whole process is still RANDOM.

The selection process is a blackbox. The internal coding is NOT known. As a result people applied at any random time within the given time limits. The code could have selected applicants from any application time period.

This "error" has just ADDED to the RANDOMNESS.

Think of it like this: Assume that each application is a 1 penny coin dropped in a big jar. Also, assume the coins are made of iron. The selection is to be done by opening a hole at the bottom of the jar and let some random coins fall out. The coins falling out are the selected ones.

By "error" there is also a magnet in the jar as well. When the small hole is opened at the bottom of the jar it opens just below the magnet; the few coins (selectees) start falling through the hole. The magnet with all the coins stuck to it also falls through. Nobody knew that there was a magnet ("error") in the jar. So nobody tried to throw their coin next to the magnet.

The process is STILL COMPLETELY RANDOM.

Noone has been favoured.

There is no reason for the voiding.


Please let me know if you disagree.

Yes, because they said there is no evidence of someone's intentional interference and not everybody was selected from 5th and 6th, it is still random no matter what the distribution might be. I guess it just does not look "random enough" so they cancel.

 

[GNH]

Yes, because they said there is no evidence of someone's intentional interference and not everybody was selected from 5th and 6th, it is still random no matter what the distribution might be. I guess it just does not look "random enough" so they cancel.

Wrong...the law mandates that ALL ELIGIBLE entries get a chance at winning and obviously if 99% of the entries have been excluded based on the date of application,then it is is not lawful.

 

[dv2012x]

This does NOT matter.

As long as this selection method was NOT known, it does NOT matter.

Nobody knew that the first applicants would be selected. This is why it is called an "ERROR" and not "FRAUD". Consequently, nobody tried to apply first.
The system could have chosen the 2nd 100,000 or last 100,000.

Do you see that as long as nobody knows of this, the selection is still RANDOM?

Applicants applied at RANDOM and a group was chosen. As long as nobody knows the method these applicants are chosen, the selection is still RANDOM.


1- Assume that a program will choose 2 balls out of 10 balls at RANDOM and you ask me to order 10 balls next to each other for this program to choose from.
2- I order 10 balls that I have next to each other.
3- Then the program goes ahead and chooses the first 2.
4- The choice is still RANDOM.
5- I did NOT know that the program would take the first 2 balls. Consequently, I did not put the balls in any specific order.
6- The probability of any of these 2 balls to be chosen is still unchanged.

Nobody knew of the "ERROR" and NOBODY got an unfair advantage.
The program (and error) resulted in a certain group to be chosen. The people in this group are still RANDOM.

The "ERROR" could have made the program choose every 100th applicant. Or the first 50,000 and last 50,000.
All these choices are the internal workings of the BLACKBOX selection program.

As applicants we had no way of knowing this and we could not affect the selection process.

Therefore, the RANDOMNESS is NOT effected.


I think you are mistaking "random selection" to mean "uniformly distributed".

The program took as input ALL applicants and then, according to whatever its internal logic, selected a certain group.
The resulting group is a random selection from among ALL applicants.
The group selected does Not need to be "uniformly distributed" according to their application date & time.
The important point in randomness is that all applicants should have the same chance of being selected.
This was definitely the case, as long as all this was an "error" as declared.

If all this was planned to give someone an advantage over others, then someone could apply at a certain time to increase his/her chance to being selected.
Then only would the selection not be random anymore.
However, in that case it could not be called an "error" anyway.

To reiterate, an "error" indicates that noone knew of the programming details. Therefore noone had an advantage over others.
Consequently, everybody applied without knowledge of being able to manipulating the selection system.

Hence the selection is still RANDOM.

Without knowing how the system would make the selection, would you have been able to gain an unfair advantage? Would you know when or when not to apply?
No, you would not.

As a result the selection was still RANDOM from amongst ALL applicants.

It all comes back to the crucial point which I have repeated many times. As long as noone had any prior knowledge of the details of how the system would behave while selecting the "winners", nobody had an unfair advantage. And as this situation is an "error", this is definitely the case.

Simple question: Without knowing how the system would make its selection, could you have made anything to increase your chances of being selected. Simple Answer: NO.


I believe that cancelling the "winners" based on the statement that this was an unfair and non random selection is wrong.
Let aside human factors, it is wrong even mathematically.

Assume that there are 1000 tiny balls in a toy train which has 10 seperate wagons.
Each wagon has 100 balls in it.
Someone tells you to randomly choose 100 balls.


It is not necessary for you to choose 10 balls from each seperate wagon.

You can randomly choose 50 from some wagons and 5 from others. You only need to make sure you choose 100 balls.

Or you might just randomly pick up a whole wagon...
And you still have chosen 100 random balls.


Nobody new that you would choose this particular wagon.
Noone had any unfair advantage.

The selection has taken into account ALL Wagons and ALL Balls and it is still RANDOM.

In our case the balls are the applications and the wagons correspond to the Application Dates.


Unless you can prove that any one applicant had any chance to manipulate the outcome of he system and gain any unfair advantage, I can not agree to the fact that this selection was not random.

In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game

 

[NuvF]

The main point here is that: with or without a computer error, the selection is still RANDOM.

As this situation is an "error", nobody knew about it. As a result, nobody could gain from it. Nobody knew that applying on the earlier dates would increase your chance. As a result the whole process is still RANDOM.

The selection process is a blackbox. The internal coding is NOT known. As a result people applied at any random time within the given time limits. The code could have selected applicants from any application time period.

This "error" has just ADDED to the RANDOMNESS.

Think of it like this: Assume that each application is a 1 penny coin dropped in a big jar. Also, assume the coins are made of iron. The selection is to be done by opening a hole at the bottom of the jar and let some random coins fall out. The coins falling out are the selected ones.

By "error" there is also a magnet in the jar as well. When the small hole is opened at the bottom of the jar it opens just below the magnet; the few coins (selectees) start falling through the hole. The magnet with all the coins stuck to it also falls through. Nobody knew that there was a magnet ("error") in the jar. So nobody tried to throw their coin next to the magnet.

The process is STILL COMPLETELY RANDOM.

Noone has been favoured.

There is no reason for the voiding.


Please let me know if you disagree.

Eh, nice !
Problem is, the US congress stipulated in law,the INA, that never any garbage like a magnet should ever be in the original 'jar'.
DoS has realized that someone has put it in there purposely or has dropped in from the sky. They ARE investigating how it happened.

The main issue here is the garbage was DISCOVERED soon enough, with pants down!!

Meanwhile people who are overall responsible for the 'jar' whose jobs are already jeopardized, realized that they are also accountable in a court of law for breaking the law, knowingly or unknowingly.

And they have to rectify the situation and apply the stipulated law, sooner than later.

They have NO obligation to anyone but to their own butts and to the US Law !

Results is, clean the 'tainted' jar. Put back in ALL that was taken out, including those got stuck into the magnet and re draw.

Yes they may have been in a catch 22 situation. Face a law suite from the coins that got out OR, face consequences for more obvious breaking of laws in INA.

They chose the latter is statistically more probable and would hold in a court of law.

So to safeguard themselves and their own 'feelings' than others', they will clean the jar and do it all over again.

Those who are hurt can find any provisions from the US law and challenge the actions. But the DoS lawyers must have advised that the success of those efforts are slim to none. But hey......US immigration lawyers are made of a starnge metal, it smells and looks funny. They sometimes could make an impossible a reality by using the technicalities of law to their clients' advantage.

Those in the 22k lot, you can get serious and try your luck. Hopefully a 'good' lawyer would study the situation/facts and if s/he finds a loophole with any remote possibility of success MAY offer the services. Until then.....Good Luck!!

 

[GNH]

Dude..how many times should I tell you this. The LAW mandates that ALL eligible entries get a chance at winning. The only consideration being the secret forumla they use to divide the amount of winners per region. That by LAW is the only factor to be used by the computer in determining who wins. The date of entry is an extraneous factor which influenced this years result and hence it is not lawful.

 

[NuvF]

Dude..how many times should I tell you this. The LAW mandates that ALL eligible entries get a chance at winning. The only consideration being the secret forumla they use to divide the amount of winners per region. That by LAW is the only factor to be used by the computer in determining who wins. The date of entry is an extraneous factor which influenced this years result and hence it is not lawful.

Secret formula???

Read the INA relevant clauses, its there in plain English!!
The numbers to calculate the ratios DoS just have to get from the population estimates they readily have. That's all.

 

[dv2012x]

Assume that there are 1000 tiny balls in a toy train which has 10 seperate wagons.
Each wagon has 100 balls in it.
Someone tells you to randomly choose 100 balls.


It is not necessary for you to choose 10 balls from each seperate wagon.

You can randomly choose 50 from some wagons and 5 from others. You only need to make sure you choose 100 balls.

Or you might just randomly pick up a whole wagon...
And you still have chosen 100 random balls.


Nobody new that you would choose this particular wagon.
Noone had any unfair advantage.

The selection has taken into account ALL Wagons and ALL Balls and it is still RANDOM.

In our case the balls are the applications and the wagons correspond to the Application Dates.


Unless you can prove that any one applicant had any chance to manipulate the outcome of he system and gain any unfair advantage, I can not agree to the fact that this selection was not random.

In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game

 

[NuvF]

Assume that there are 1000 tiny balls in a toy train which has 10 seperate wagons.
Each wagon has 100 balls in it.
Someone tells you to randomly choose 100 balls.


It is not necessary for you to choose 10 balls from each seperate wagon.

You can randomly choose 50 from some wagons and 5 from others. You only need to make sure you choose 100 balls.

Or you might just randomly pick up a whole wagon...
And you still have chosen 100 random balls.


Nobody new that you would choose this particular wagon.
Noone had any unfair advantage.

The selection has taken into account ALL Wagons and ALL Balls and it is still RANDOM.

In our case the balls are the applications and the wagons correspond to the Application Dates.


Unless you can prove that any one applicant had any chance to manipulate the outcome of he system and gain any unfair advantage, I can not agree to the fact that this selection was not random.

In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game

Hey, your GUESSES are as good as mine!!

But the point is, DoS must have checked what happened and must have found that the RANDOMNESS for whatever its worth was 'tainted'. Had it not been cleaned it would amount to breach of law. Hence........

 

[paulzorn]

Hey, your GUESSES are as good as mine!!

But the point is, DoS must have checked what happened and must have found that the RANDOMNESS for whatever its worth was 'tainted'. Had it not been cleaned it would amount to breach of law. Hence........

This is something that DoS should be forced to defend in a potential lawsuit. They need to reveal the exact algorithm and explain the exact nature of the error. They need to show that the results are completely non-random and that the erroneous algorithm would produce the same results every time it is run (this is the only proof of non-randomness).

Also if the program just took people from the first two days, then why do we have winning entries from the 18th onward?

Was the same program used in previous years and if not, why was it changed? There is data that there was a similar problem in DV-2011 when the majority of the entries were selected from the last few days. If this turns out to have been the same NON-RANDOM and UNFAIR program, are they really ready to revoke 55,000 green-cards?

We have to all work togethet to force a congressional investigation into the issue, start sending FOIA requests for this information, write congressmen and watchdog organizations, etc.

 

[sonibago]

One week in which I assume DOS got the advice of lawyers, statisticians and programmers and all DOS came back with was the decision to wipe the slate clean and re-draw. I wonder what these experts told the DOS people for them to take such a decision? My guess:
Lawyer............Not LEGAL
Statistician.........Not RANDOM
Programmer..........GLITCH

not necessarily in that order....

 

[chamele0n]

Wrong...the law mandates that ALL ELIGIBLE entries get a chance at winning and obviously if 99% of the entries have been excluded based on the date of application,then it is is not lawful.

All eligible entries have had a chance at winning - the DoS did not claim all the winners were in the first 2 days of the entry period.

 

[sonibago]

Also if the program just took people from the first two days, then why do we have winning entries from the 18th onward?

Where did you hear/read this?

It was stated that 90% of the winners came from the first 2 days and obviously DOS thinks it does not represent a random sample.

 

[chamele0n]

Eh, nice !
Problem is, the US congress stipulated in law,the INA, that never any garbage like a magnet should ever be in the original 'jar'.
DoS has realized that someone has put it in there purposely or has dropped in from the sky. They ARE investigating how it happened.

The main issue here is the garbage was DISCOVERED soon enough, with pants down!!

Meanwhile people who are overall responsible for the 'jar' whose jobs are already jeopardized, realized that they are also accountable in a court of law for breaking the law, knowingly or unknowingly.

And they have to rectify the situation and apply the stipulated law, sooner than later.

They have NO obligation to anyone but to their own butts and to the US Law !

Results is, clean the 'tainted' jar. Put back in ALL that was taken out, including those got stuck into the magnet and re draw.

Yes they may have been in a catch 22 situation. Face a law suite from the coins that got out OR, face consequences for more obvious breaking of laws in INA.

They chose the latter is statistically more probable and would hold in a court of law.

So to safeguard themselves and their own 'feelings' than others', they will clean the jar and do it all over again.

Those who are hurt can find any provisions from the US law and challenge the actions. But the DoS lawyers must have advised that the success of those efforts are slim to none. But hey......US immigration lawyers are made of a starnge metal, it smells and looks funny. They sometimes could make an impossible a reality by using the technicalities of law to their clients' advantage.

Those in the 22k lot, you can get serious and try your luck. Hopefully a 'good' lawyer would study the situation/facts and if s/he finds a loophole with any remote possibility of success MAY offer the services. Until then.....Good Luck!!

WRONG - the DoS said "We have no evidence that this problem was caused by any intentional act. No unauthorized party accessed data related to the DV program. " There was no wrongdoing to "discover."

There was no interference.

 

[sonibago]

WRONG - the DoS said "We have no evidence that this problem was caused by any intentional act. No unauthorized party accessed data related to the DV program. " There was no wrongdoing to "discover."

There was no interference.

Maybe a Glitch?

 

[GNH]

All eligible entries have had a chance at winning - the DoS did not claim all the winners were in the first 2 days of the entry period.

Not an equal chance within each geographical region as required by the LAW...key word equal.

The program skewed the process by using the application date as a factor which it should not have.

 

[NuvF]

WRONG - the DoS said "We have no evidence that this problem was caused by any intentional act. No unauthorized party accessed data related to the DV program. " There was no wrongdoing to "discover."

There was no interference.

I had an OR there pal.
Btw, its nice....so YOU ARE ready to accept whatever they say as FACTS ha?
or may be just those that suites your cause I suppose!!