Here is the Govt's Response to The complaint

We will WIN||||||

Hi Rajiv,
We hope that you are far more optimistics and secure by just getting their unlawfull unjustified reply which took them 90 days to prepare. We are sure and certenly know what are their week points now.

Hope that now you have a very solid base to fight the case with all additional plantiffs. We are going to win if throw away all reply with proper proof and justifications. Please post what you think. Thanks.
:)
 
They are going to enact Shakespeare's "Comdey of Errors" in the Court :p . I am sure that they will be one of the easiest opponents for Rajiv. He will have great fun in stripping them of their lies.
 
ATTORNEYS

It also took six attorneys to come up with this!
Who is who here? Does the DOJ represent all collectively here?
 
Re: ATTORNEYS

I bet it was actually done by some interns at DOJ. Real attorneys of course have to put their name down at the end. It is possible that they thought this was too trivial to be of any concern to them.

Originally posted by cinta
It also took six attorneys to come up with this!
Who is who here? Does the DOJ represent all collectively here?
Click to expand...
 
answer...

CIS is praying the court for not only to dismiss the case but also to...

"...;award of costs and expenses of suit to defendants, and grant...."

Wow. CIS wants apply all kind's of (mental/legal/finacial) pressure on the Plaintiff's, I guess????
 
Even to a layman, CIS's response seems singularly sloppy, with typos galore. In any case, their obvious incompetence works to our advantage.
What about the motion for certifying this case as a 'class action', and also the motion for summary justice? When should we expect a decision by the court regarding those petitions?
 
It is quite interesting (in a very depressing way) that the response said this (on pages 18 / 19):

quote---------------------------------

... defendants deny that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in its prayer for relief, .or to any relief whatsoever .

end quote ---------------------------

Amazing!!!!!
 
Next Steps

Rajiv, Moderators

I'm echoing the thoughts of many readers here when I ask, what happens next ?

Could you please walk us through step by step (with timelines if possible) and tell us what to expect next? when to expect more news ? what actions can we take to help the cause

regards
-BacklogBlues
 
what a typical goverment response. I was kinda expecting that but that does't mean we should stop the fight. They will try to corner us thinking its there rule this country and we have to corner them cause we pay the TAXES and its our right.
I guess we should collect more signatures to support our class action suit 1200 or so is not enough .
Rajiv whats on your mind we all are waiting to hear that.
 
Re: ATTORNEYS

Originally posted by cinta
It also took six attorneys to come up with this!
Who is who here? Does the DOJ represent all collectively here?
Click to expand...

Yes, We need 6 persons to change 1 light.

Coolest job in USA: CIS attorney. You need to know how to spell the phrases: I deny,The defendants deny,All the allegations are denied,Denied,I admit, Admitted,........
 
Interpretation of CIS reply

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' Complaint or to award any relief sought by plaintiffs, including but not limited to certification of a class, mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief.
I interpret the above statement as: Just listen to CIS, only CIS.

2. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court lacks the authority to grant any of the relief sought by plaintiffs because there is no statutory or other legal requirement for the adjudication of the plaintiffs' adjustment of status within any period of time.
I interpret the above statement as: CIS will adjudicate your application sometime in your life time or posthumously.

3. Plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies available; thereby making this action not ripe for consideration by this Court.
I interpret the above statement as: Call NCSC, hold the line for about an hour before you are connected to a representative and they will read the online case status which is available for you online.

4. Relief should be denied plaintiffs as an exercise of judicial discretion to withhold relief where, as here, the Court should not, even if empowered to do so, engage in, or otherwise undertake, the reordering of the defendants' priorities concerning allocation of resources and management of the defendants' case load.
I interpret the above statement as: CIS is above all judicial system. CIS has allocated resources to work on high priority issues like application fees hike proposal. Pay for EAD and AP every year to renew it, if you are not happy then CIS might start issuing EAD and AP valid for 1 month.

5. Plaintiffs fail to meet the requirements for class action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. R. 23.20
I interpret the above statement as: We have lot of your application money to fight such cases individually in different courts across USA. Also we planned to increase all the immigration benefits application fees, so monetarily we are well positioned to fight such cases in different courts across USA.

COUNTER PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for the following relief: that the Court dismiss the suit with prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state any claim upon which relief can be granted; denial of class certification and all relief sought by plaintiffs and the class they purportedly represent; award of costs and expenses of suit to defendants, and grant any and all other relief the Court deems to be just, necessary and proper.
I interpret the above statement as: CIS is almighty.
 
WHEREFORE is correct

Originally posted by dsatish
Mistakes :
On page4(item 12), they say that Mr Kandasamy's I485 is approved by Nebraska Service Center where as it is actually approved by VSC.
On page 20, they say "WHEREFORE" instead of "THEREFORE".
Click to expand...

I know tempers are running high. But, let me politely say that WHEREFORE is an adverb, that is perfectly valid in English and is widely used in legal lingua. WHEREFORE is also synonymous with THEREFORE and can be used interchangeably.
 
Questioning Jurisdiction cannot be arrogance!!

Originally posted by samnjny
Wow! What an arrogance this is.

If they think they can't accept this as a class action suit then there should be a way to add thousands of IP.com guys who have already expressed their willingness to be part of the suit.

Questioning the court's jurisdiction seems like a desperate attempt and hopefully will invite the fury of the judge(s) to do fair justice.
Click to expand...
Kindly treat my responses as clarifications, which I have mustered with whatever little legal knowledge I have. Please note that I am disinterested in my observations. Thanks.

1) It is not arrogance.

2) There are certain criteria that weigh heavily before a suit is admitted as a Class-Action suit. Mere numbers will not make a suit a class-action suit. The defendants are basically questioning the premise of treating this as a Class-Action Suit.

3) In Legal Law, the first and foremost right for a defendant as well as a plaintiff is to assess the Jurisdiction of the said court to hear or adjudicate the suit under question. Now, a plaintiff may believe he has approached the Court of Competent Jurisdiction and the defendant ipso facto has every right to question the court w.r.t the competent jurisdiction to hear the case. Asserting that right by a defendant can never be construed to be an act of defiance or arrogance. Certainly the Learned Judge or the Division Bench will not take it that way. Now, initiator of the Suit has to respond to this counter-claim -- i.e., Rajivji will file a counter to this counter-claim issued by the Respondents. He will have to basically assert why and how this Court is the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. If, the Court determines that it is not within its jurisdiction to hear the case, basically the plaintiff has to transfer the case to a court of competent jurisdiction. That is all.

Also, if the defendants fail to subject themselves to a court of competent jurisdiction (they will NOT and as a Governmental agency CANNOT), then the court can be approached with a Writ of Mandamus to force the defendants to act and respond -- thereby clearly subjecting themselves to the court of competent jurisdiction.
 
Originally posted by dasarihp_newid
Can we not go back and say that the plaintiffs cases which were given approval were approved after dec, I mean, after the lawsuit was filed.. Most of the "denied" statement has been because of thier approval as they are no longer facing any hardships...

Is govt thinking that there are only these 6 plaintiffs ?? what and how will they respond if we show 1000-2000 more plaintiffs names, and other thousands of members who are in various stages of gc ?
Click to expand...
I had observed it earlier in one of these threads, that even if the merits of the case wins approval from the Court, INS will adjudicate only those cases of the plaintiffs. A court cannot adjudicate a suit based on surmises. You can argue that INS approved those petitions only after the case was filed. Can you prove their motive? That is what the court cares. Can you prove that the adjudication of certain plaintiffs after filing the case was done with malafide intentions on the part of INS? Accusations have nothing to do in a court of law. You need to prove your allegations. This being a civil case, the court will adopt the preponderance of evidence yardstick and will rule in favor of INS because why should INS NOT adjudicate the plaintiffs' petitions? Does it know them personally? Does any of the INS Director or the Attorney General have any personal enmity that would come in way of their bungling the plaintiffs' petitions are clear legal issues, that one cannot prove and hence will be ruled in favor of INS.

In a nutshell, one can allege a lot in the forums. However, when it comes to a court of law, the allegations have to be clearly supported with evidence. One way to prove that a defendant is culpable is to prove the motive. To give you an example: In a criminal case, if A murders B, he may get a less sentence. If it is proven that A had mens rea (Criminal motive/Criminal intent) against B, then the sentence may very well be that of capital punishment or life in prison. So, the intent or motive is an important legal yardstick that you have to prove against the accused/defendant/respondent in order to seek the relief you claim.

Along the same lines, just because only 100 men are convicted of rape, does it mean that there weren't that many rapes at all? Only those who approach the legal system will get remedy. If it is a class-action or a Writ petition that is filed ON and IN behalf of a class of people, then the relief may be extended to that entire class. Until it is admitted as a class-action suit, only those individuals who approach the court are ordered relief.
 
Originally posted by dasarihp_newid
DENIED ??

===========

41. Congress has clearly expressed an opinion that a reasonable time for AOS adjudications is approximately six months

Denied ..

42. The Defendants have clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonableness in the time for adjudications.

Denied

========


Why would they deny this ?? the whole case was based on this ..
Click to expand...

Even a bill has no effect in a court of law. It is a court of law. It is never a court of bills or court of opinions. That much said, the defendant can deny any of the opinions which in legal lingua will be treated as hearsay. In re (41) can you provide an INA Act and Section/Sub-Section number of the statute? Clearly the answer is NO. Hence they were able to deny that.

In re to (42), the defendants have a stronger ground to deny. The definition of reasonableness is the key to the defendants' rejection and the plaintiffs' assertion. The court will be hardpressed to define the term reasonableness so that it is reasonable to both the parties. That is why, wherever, there are no clear legal statutes, the defendants can clearly reply in the negative.
 
.....award of costs and expenses of suit to defendants,.....
Click to expand...

They also want money to defend themselves !!!
Any idea how much this will cost ..this will give us some idea how much to aim for in the .ORG foundation.
 
eb2_I485_RD0901

That is a perfunctory and ceremonious prayer that every plaintiff and defendant would pray. Don't attach much significance to that crap.
 
poongunranar,
The Adjudication centers have made several statements with respect to goals which they said they "hope to achieve" but have not taken any steps to meet the goals. In your opinion, can this be used to hold them accountable to any degree.
 
TheLastMile

Originally posted by ThelastMile
poongunranar,
The Adjudication centers have made several statements with respect to goals which they said they "hope to achieve" but have not taken any steps to meet the goals. In your opinion, can this be used to hold them accountable to any degree.
Click to expand...
Again, as I said, it has no "legal basis," in a court of law. Again in legal lingua, it will be observed as "not maintainable." It is because, there is no legal basis upon which the defendant can be accused of a violation. Say, for example, if it was in INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act) code that the maximum number of days for adjudication of any I-485 petition should be 500 days and it is proven that INS did not approve it on the 501st day, it is a clear argument against the defendant. The defendant, now, cannot dismiss lightly of the accusation. Now, there is nothing that Congress has passed as law that specifies a set date and time-limit. That comes handy to the defendants.

Now, "hopes," "obiters," "opinions," "memos," etc. do not have any legal basis. However, they certainly do help in "furthering" a case so that once a Judge or a Division Bench that entertains the suit, is convinced of a prima facie case, further exploration into the case becomes possible. Many a time, whenever there is not clear legal basis, there is always a case made out of jurisprudence. This is what they call in legal lingua as case-law. For example, Private International Law in many countries does not have clearly defined rules and it keeps evolving thanks to the Case Law statutes that were obtained in other cases/suits.

Therefore, "hopes," "obiters," "opinions," "memos," can be pretty handy, if ultimately they can be related to a inkhorn verbiage in statutory law that the very law can be interpreted under the garb of such "opinions," thereby forcing the defendants to be accountable. For that, the attorney representing the plaintiffs has to burn the candle both the sides and should fire all his/her cylinders to make it possible.

Compare and contrast as to how the Class Action Suit against Blockbuster Video Rentals was successful, even though there is no "statutory" provision that deals with fines on return of late rentals. However, the case evolved so wonderfully, that it has now become one of the constituents of case-law. Therefore, such "opinions," etc. should lead the plaintiff to ultimately relate or draw a correlation to a violation or possible violation of a "statutory" law. If not, it is a lost cause :(

Also note, that you cannot prove that INS did not act in "good faith" to resolve the backlogs. You can accuse that way. But you cannot prove. You can prove that it takes longer time to adjudicate. That is different than proving that INS did not act in "GOOD FAITH" to resolve the issue. Note that all this counts in a court of law.

Also, every society, every polity, and every institution of a free country aspires to usher in an egalitarian society that is free of all crimes and corruption. That is the goal. But, only Ulysses' Utopia will qualify for that society. That being said, can I sue the President of this country holding him accountable for every crime and terror attack against its citizenry? Certainly not. The same holds good for your argument against INS bungling on its own "hopes" and "mission" statement. It will remain a mission statement ad infinitum. Courts will not entertain that logic at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
poongunranar,
I appreciate your role in providing an alternate view point in this forum. How ever, i would suggest that you look into both sides of the coins rather than the weakness of our litigation. There is no use writing 20 lines of explanation for some of the weaker arguments posted by some people here. If you have so much patience and time to do analysis, i respectfully suggest that you pick on some strong postings (as and when you deem so) and try to start a discussion.
Now try to answer to my simple question : Can't the court intervene if the INS takes 10 years to adjudicate a I485 case (doing 10 EAD renewals in the process) just because there are no timelines defined in the law ? No sane person will argue that the case should be dismissed because there is nothing in the law about the timelines. If you have real gutsy wisdom, then try to challenge Rajiv's arguments in his filing (he quoted different acts which can be seen in pages 16,17 and 18 in the defendant's reply). Atleat try to answer the basic question raised by me in this post (Is it OK to take 10 yrs to adjudicate a case?).
I once again respect your freedom to express your opinions and i am only challenging the veracity of your hollow explanations towards non validity of "our right to timely justice".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top