Litigation update this week

[Kwame O]

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

Raesvky: All that I am trying to say is that, no lawyer puts up an argument for only one issue. You raise as many issues as the facts warrant, but it does not necessarily mean that you are right on those issues. The reason behind that idea is, if you dont raise those issues for the first time you can NEVER raise them again not even during appeals. So we should all expect both laywers to raise several issues. THATS IS ALL THAT I AM TRYING TO SAY. Again, what I said was just anticipated arguments that, I think, Mr. White will make and not my personal answer to the pending lawsuit.

Go to my previous post and you will notice that, I said that I anticipate plaintiffs to raise the issues of standing and lack of jurisdiction. Those issues are all procedural and every competent lawyer builds his argument from there as the facts warrants.

I am saying rights have been created because the basic laws of contracts establish this point and the keyword is DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE. You can google that if you want.

 

[DrStein]

It's clearly stated in 22 CFR § 42.33(c) exactly how the selection process shall be done. Among other things it says "...separately rank-ordered at random by a computer...! Meaning that the ordering of the petitions shall be random, this has clearly not happened. Therefore the result is void. Also take in consideration that they only pick a certain number of petitions from a region and then move on to the next, thus making it possible to have people from the 5th not selected and still have people from the 6th selected.

The selection process is stated in here: edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf

 

[Kwame O]

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...

Win Dv: I concur, lets stick to the topic because people are from different backgrounds and also have different interpretations of the bible; some dont even believe in the bible at all. Sompe people are christians, but dont bring that up anywahere in their discussions or comments. It was just wrong for "Mele" to caricature people in that regard.

 

[raevsky]

If you dont raise those issues for the first time you can NEVER raise them again not even during appeals

Is that what is on complaint? What was not there before cannot be added later?

 

[win dv]

Win Dv: I concur, lets stick to the topic because people are from different backgrounds and also have different interpretations of the bible; some dont even believe in the bible at all. I am a christian, but I dont bring that up anywahere in my discussions or comments. It was just wrong for "Mele" to caricature people in that regard.

Agree....

 

[CraigToomy]

Jesus was selected in DV-33, btw.

 

[Styles]

Dr.Stein you seem to be from Dos.People dont trust Dos accuracy and efficiency anymore.
I wish it were possible to sue you guys for millions so that we teach you guys a lesson.

 

[DrStein]

Dr.Stein you seem to be from Dos.People dont trust Dos accuracy and efficiency anymore.
I wish it were possible to sue you guys for millions so that we teach you guys a lesson.

I assure you that I am not from DOS or in any way connected to them. I just follow the discussion with interest and gave my 2c on it.

 

[CraigToomy]

Please take a not next time if possible. That might be extremely important.

I hope to have copies as soon as the case is closed.

 

[ololo12]

This is really getting interesting.

@jayo2k bro, i am waiting to read your contribution to the topic of discussion.

 

[bouyantee]

@Kwame,for the sake of the 22k previous selectee,i will urge you to contact Mr.White so that you can both put heads together and strategies in winning this case. From what i have read from you,i think you are a very sound LAWYER and knows the Law very well. Pls go to Mr.White's blog and drop some note for him,it might be very useful.Thanks

 

[raevsky]

Kwame O is at his second year at law school or has just finished the second year

 

[bouyantee]

Anxiously waiting for Mr.White response tomorrow. The movie will definitely come to an end on the 12th

 

[bouyantee]

Whatever,Kwame is a sound lawyer,and i hope he goes places.

 

[Styles]

Someone has posted the arguments Dos put forward to the judge.Theres a point that he states something like the U.S gov. Should not re-instate unlawful results and that it would affect their position globaly.(something like that)now thats a tough one.

 

[Styles]

On the comments of mr.White postings on his blog.

 

[Dubbies]

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

Actually, if DOS uses this explanation someone from this thread wrote, it would weaken Mr. Whites argument for that point. "It's clearly stated in 22 CFR § 42.33(c) exactly how the selection process shall be done. Among other things it says "...separately rank-ordered at random by a computer...! Meaning that the ordering of the petitions shall be random, this has clearly not happened. Therefore the result is void. Also take in consideration that they only pick a certain number of petitions from a region and then move on to the next, thus making it possible to have people from the 5th not selected and still have people from the 6th selected."

 

[Styles]

This is it"if the government can be estopped at all,it may not be estopped as the case of private litigant blah blah blah
from a laymans view l think they are stating that they are above the law or something similar.I knew they would try something like this.Never under estimate the govt. on anything.

 

[jayo2k]

First Mr White send a letter to DOS claiming the results weren't random, & now he sue them claiming it was random? I don't understand at all

 

[bouyantee]

Actually, if DOS uses this explanation someone from this thread wrote, it would weaken Mr. Whites argument for that point. "It's clearly stated in 22 CFR § 42.33(c) exactly how the selection process shall be done. Among other things it says "...separately rank-ordered at random by a computer...! Meaning that the ordering of the petitions shall be random, this has clearly not happened. Therefore the result is void. Also take in consideration that they only pick a certain number of petitions from a region and then move on to the next, thus making it possible to have people from the 5th not selected and still have people from the 6th selected."

Hmm, I have heard of couples from the same region who registered on the 5th,one of them won and the other wasn't selected AND from that same region another person won on the 6th. I guess the couples should have won simultaneously before jumping to pick another person on the 6th from the same region,Something is still fishy.