Of course!! I absolutely wish everybody best of luck myself...Just wishin it's an equal opportunity for every entrants in a fairness manner.
Wishing all & sundry success.
Litigation update this week
- Thread starter jayo2k
- Start date
- Status
Of course!! I absolutely wish everybody best of luck myself...Just wishin it's an equal opportunity for every entrants in a fairness manner.
Wishing all & sundry success.
CraigToomy
Banned
MINUTE ORDER The Court held a conference call with the parties on June 30, 2011. The parties agreed to consolidate the preliminary injunction proceedings with an adjudication of the merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). The parties also agreed to defer addressing the class certification issue until the Court has ruled on the merits of the claims of the named plaintiffs. Defendants opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction must be filed by July 6, 2011. Plaintiffs reply must be filed by July 8, 2011, at 2 p.m. The Court instructed the parties to address issues of plaintiffs standing and whether there has been final agency action in their briefs. The Court set a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction for July 12, 2011 at 10 a.m. The parties have indicated that they do not intend to call live witnesses at the hearing; any requests to introduce live testimony must be submitted to the Court by July 8, 2011. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/30/2011.
I guess that is the first step "That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case" of the mentioned steps before the injunction is considered.
Other steps include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction :
Of those four my thoughts are:
1. That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case - false
2. That they likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted - true
3. That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction - true
4. That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest - false
2 out of 4 seem to be false, my guess injunction will not be granted.
Last edited by a moderator:
CraigToomy
Banned
Yeah, you also guessed that the result was odd because of some new paranoid anti-fraud selection procedure and not a programming error.
I'll try to attend the hearing.
You nailed it....!
On what rational/ legal basis do you say true and/or false? Pls tie the facts to the elements of the law you have listed--it is not a true or false questions.
Even by your own true and false it is 2/4 but you still able to guess the injunction won't be granted-- are you sure you are not really taking sides?
Again don't give facial interpretation to the laws or the elements of the laws.
True. However, I have more information now than I had before.
On May 13th I did not see http://barbados.usembassy.gov/pr05162011a.html (which was published on May 16th)
I had enough information only about one of the regions (Europe), because I used data from a European forum that had enough statistics, and from Fox25's statement from this forum (also for Europe only). Other than from that region, there was not enough statistics to make any conclusions. This forum provided maybe a few winners outside of Europe - not enough for representative statistics.
My thoughts were that there is a truly random algorithm that would produce what we saw in each of the regions.
The fact that winning time interval (5 & 6th of October) coincided in 3 largest regions (Europe, Africa, Asia), while it was supposed to be independent of the region itself, was unknown to me until I read teleconference with Ms.Fulton. I could not even imagine it was the same for 3 specific regions.
Only when I read it, I was able to make a conclusion that time intervals for 3 largest regions fully coincided. What made me feel that the new anti-fraud measures alone could not fully explain what happened. Because that type of coincidence could happen with probability 1/36. Not too low,rather possible, but suspicious.
BTW, it is possible that the programming error was right with the selection of the time interval. It was not random somehow. That would explain why it coincided in all 3 specific regions. Instead of random selection of time interval they could have put a dummy time interval for debugging purposes, and accidentally leave it like that for production version.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is because my understanding is all 4 need to be satisfied. Otherwise, it would make sense to make an injunction on whatever reasons.
Let's consider a famous scientist N who applied for the lottery but did not win.
Provided I want him to be included into the list of winners through an injunction.
2. That they likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted - true. If there is no injunction, he will not be included. Irreparable harm for him.
3. That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction - true. If there is no injunction, he will not be included. Period. But if there is an injunction, no harm for others. They could still keep their numbers for future, just in case.
4. That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest - true. It is in the US public interest for a famous scientist to work for US.
Only the first part is missing. No merits at all. But that means no need for injunction.
Strange example, famouse scientists more likely working and getting H1 visas then playing in lottery, in the lottery there are no difference between famouse scientist and unfamouse university ungraduated guy.
CraigToomy
Banned
That's O1.
Famous scientists are frequently absentminded and do not have to apply a lot of efforts into immigration stuff. It might be too much for them to apply for H-1 or O-1. Lottery is simplier.
But it does not matter. If US really wants one they will not even think why he does not apply for H-1 or O-1.
So, if he applied for lottery and did not win, is it enough for Mr. White to provided an injunction for everybody else so that DOS will include this guy into the list of winners?
All 3 other conditions are satisfied, but the guy clearly does not have any chance to finally win - because he lost. I am not talking about DV-2012. Just about DV-2011.
By applying on O1 or H1 they show that they are famous sientists, by applying on DV programm they show that they just some graduated guys with immigration expectancies, and I also don't see how it's easier if winning chance is so much depends on a luck, or are you talking about some cheating ways ?
- Status