Litigation update this week

[raevsky]

That's the last bit I haven't figured. If they simply queried the database with no order or sorting specified, how come my wife who submitted the entry 10 minutes after me on 5th didn't win?

My previous explanation http://forums.immigration.com/showt...-6-and-WAS-NOT-selected&p=2315270#post2315270 was that all of them win, just only some of them (with small rank numbers) were published, and the rest were not.
However, according to what he said, there was no random selection at all, and I expect the rank numbers just were increasing as the time of submission increases.
However, that does not look like that according to http://www.govorimpro.us/showthread.php?t=28361&page=1

 

[Kwame O]

THat's a good one.

It's not a good one. Results were cancelled on May 13, and Plaintiffs sent a letter to defendants on May 17 and subsequently on May 25. Plaintiffs have tried all means to settle the case out of court, but defendants neither responded to plaintiffs' letter nor phone calls. Plaintiffs expended efforts to reach defendants within the said 6 weeks. I don't think any court will over look plaintiffs effort to reach defendants and defendants terse replies. Plaintiffs only filed the lawsuit after defendants have failed to dialogue and as the last vehicle to resolve this issue.

 

[Kwame O]

Nope, not according to point #8 .....8. "I am familiar with regulations of 22 CFR § 42.33(c) that requires that the DV entries be “rank ordered at random be a computer using computer software for that purpose.” In computer software the use of term “random” ordering of a list is a term of art that requires specialized software that generates numbers that are mathematically proven to be random. Not only did the software we used fail to randomize the DV entries here, but the two percent of entries who were at the top of list due to database optimization also fails to meet the definition of random in the regulations because no computer software designed for the purpose of randomizing was used.



So Mr. White's interpretation of 'random' is not consistent with that of DoS (i.e their computer software use of the term).........

Font expect DoS definition of "random" to be the same as plaintiffs' definition: thats why it is an issue.

 

[CraigToomy]

However, according to what he said, there was no random selection at all, and I expect the rank numbers just were increasing as the time of submission increases.
However, that does not look like that according to http://www.govorimpro.us/showthread.php?t=28361&page=1

Exactly. That would assume that the cut-off application is somewhere between mine and my wife's, in this case there should be no winners on 6th at all.

 

[USAnDream]

It's not a good one. Results were cancelled on May 13, and Plaintiffs sent a letter to defendants on May 17 and subsequently on May 25. Plaintiffs have tried all means to settle the case out of court, but defendants neither responded to plaintiffs' letter nor phone calls. Plaintiffs expended efforts to reach defendants within the said 6 weeks. I don't think any court will over look plaintiffs effort to reach defendants and defendants terse replies. Plaintiffs only filed the lawsuit after defendants have failed to dialogue and as the last vehicle to resolve this issue.

I meant the erroneous sense of entitlement.

 

[raevsky]

That would assume that the cut-off application is somewhere between mine and my wife's, in this case there should be no winners on 6th at all

That is a good point for Mr.White to use when he prepares the response on July 8th.

Looks extremely strange to me they have not noticed it

That is another good point to use by Mr.White in his response. Just to question certain points in affidavit.

 

[CraigToomy]

That is a good point for Mr.White to use when he prepares the response on July 8th.

Yeah, apparently that's the plan.

Was anyone selected who submitted their entry on October 6, 2010? If so, if you have any proof that you submitted on October 6 (e.g., screen shot showing your name, and the date/time), please e-mail to me.
In addition, if you have a spouse, friend, or parent who was NOT selected, but submitted on October 5th or 6th and has proof, please e-mail to me. Thank you.
Ken White

 

[Kwame O]

I meant the erroneous sense of entitlement.

But you are still wrong. The court has jurisdiction and plaintiffs have standing.

Jurisdiction: this is a federal question and also Art III of the Constitution gives Supreme Court and other federal court jurisdiction over cases involving government officials... etc. That's why people from other countries are still able to sue and be sued.

The issue of standing:
1.Plaintiffs have suffered a personal concrete harm and some have suffered a threat of harm(lost of money)
2. The harm resulted from DoS actions to invalidate the results
3. Redressability: plaintiffs harm can only be addressed by the court through relief.

Plaintiffs claims will be ripe once injunction is denied and the redraw is done. Again, if the injunction is denied some of plaintiffs if not all, claims and issue will be moot creating lack of jurisdiction for the court.
While plaintiffs might not have any right at the time of entry, their rights were created when they received an official letter from DoS with a promise to proceed to the next step and further confirmed plaintiffs numbers through calls and asked them to send their firms form further process. This is distinct from normal visa application where an applicant dies not receive any form of official letter with a promise. Plaintiffs heavily and detrimentally relied on defendants promise (official notification letter), to expend efforts towards furthering the application.


NOTE: this is just a synopsis of the an ancitipated argument plaintiffs will make.

 

[Samusoni]

Exactly. That would assume that the cut-off application is somewhere between mine and my wife's, in this case there should be no winners on 6th at all.

I also have a case similar to yours. I applied for 3 people on the 5th, two were selected and one was not. If we believe their explanation, then there shouldn't have been any selectees on the 6th or any other day for that matter.

 

[Styles]

DoS has lost its credibility,people dont trust them anymore..And l see them slipping more out of the credibility curve when giving contradictory remarks e.g noreply emails and the randomn issue..

 

[raevsky]

their rights were created when they received an official letter from DoS with a promise to proceed to the next step and further confirmed plaintiffs numbers through calls and asked them to send their firms form further process

DOS cannot create that type of right without congressional mandate.

 

[Kwame O]

I also have a case similar to yours. I applied for 3 people on the 5th, two were selected and one was not. If we believe their explanation, then there shouldn't have been any selectees on the 6th or any other day for that matter.

Interesting: as more details surface, people will realised that:
1. This not a SLAM-DUNK case for DoS nor Mr. White
2. The dots are not connecting about what actually happened


I understand some people on other days between the 7th and 30th.

But most importantly, with life-changing opportunities for people and the fate of people at stake, why did DoS fail to make a reasonable and diligent checks before publishing the results.

Now millions of people are going through what could have easily been prevented.

 

[Mele]

Nice read! Lets c Mr. Whites reply and subsequently, d Judge decision. I think Kwame O. Should strategise on diz issue with Mr. White cos u seems to know God more than Jesus knows!'

 

[Kwame O]

DOS cannot create that type of right without congressional mandate.

what do u mean by without Congressional mandate? No one can just terminate an offer or revoke it when the other person has DETRIMENTALLY and HEAVILY relied on your promise. DoS did not require any power from Congress to send those letters: it is very simple. I have tied the facts to the possible rules/laws if you want to discuss do similar and dont say what you dont know pls. no guessing and speculations.

 

[raevsky]

No one can just terminate an offer or revoke it when the other person has DETRIMENTALLY and HEAVILY relied on your promise

DOS violated congressional mandate and it's own written policy while making this erroneous offer. Making this offer does not give any validity to it.

 

[raevsky]

Was anyone selected who submitted their entry on October 6, 2010? If so, if you have any proof that you submitted on October 6 (e.g., screen shot showing your name, and the date/time), please e-mail to me.
In addition, if you have a spouse, friend, or parent who was NOT selected, but submitted on October 5th or 6th and has proof, please e-mail to me. Thank you.
Ken White

Use the link http://www.govorimpro.us/showthread.php?t=28361&page=1 to find them and let then know. Also, the same thing is expected at facebook group. Just let Mr. White know about this potential discrepancy

 

[Kwame O]

o

 

[Kwame O]

DOS violated congressional mandate and it's own written policy while making this erroneous offer. Making this offer does not give any validity to it.

read the laws about "mistake." Assuming this was even a mistake it is not easy for DoS to wring itself out of making a promise.

 

[raevsky]

read the laws about "mistake." Assuming this was even a mistake it is not easy for DoS to wring itself out of making a promise.

Wrong. According to plaintiffs,

DOS will argue it was required to break its written commitment to 22 000 individuals to comply with a Congressional mandate

In the context said that means the requirement is valid if random means not what plaintiffs say.

What I mean here even plaintiffs realize DOS is in fact required to break a written commitment if complying with congressional mandate leaves no other choice. Mr. White did not argues with that, he was saying it was still possible to comply with congressional mandate by other means, without breaking commitment, because random means not what DOS says.

 

[win dv]

I do not know God more than Jesus. Jesus himself is God (Read John 1) and Romans says that we have all be adopted by sons of God whereby we cry Abba father (an Jesus said "father why have thou..") Besides, Jesus is a son of God and the bible says that as many as beleive in him to them gave he the power to become the sons of God (John 1:12-14). He has revealed everything about Him to us by His Spirit...

Pls: I dont change what we are discussing about the lawsuit as a pretext to castigate people's believe.

In examining the scriptures, it is unreasonable to say that Jesus is God. John 1:1 was translated incorrectly. According to the original scrolls, that scripture had the letter 'a' before god. So based on the many, many other scriptures (such as the other one you cited "Jesus is a son of God) along with Acts 7:55, 56 (Steven' was given a vision of heaven in which he saw Jesus standing at God's right hand"-two separate entities here. Mark 13: 32-" of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only Father" (why doesn't the Son knows? because he is not God-(his Father). 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 (says there are many so-called gods and lords-yet for us there is one God (which is Jehovah) and one Lord (which is Jesus Christ)

Anyways let's stick to the topic of dicussion...