I understand the point you are trying to pass accross. As Lawyer,are you 80% convinced that Mr.White will be granted the motion considering is responses yesterday to DOS issues. Just be frank.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Litigation update this week
- Thread starter jayo2k
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
From a lame man point of view,I was expecting more from Mr.White yesterday. To be honest,is responses yesterday just dropped my confidence in the case a little beat.I am less optimistic,in order to handle any disappointment on the 12th,i have prepared my mind that a redraw will still hold on the 15th as worst case scenario.
what was his reply yesterday?
From a lame man point of view,I was expecting more from Mr.White yesterday. To be honest,is responses yesterday just dropped my confidence in the case a little beat.I am less optimistic,in order to handle any disappointment on the 12th,i have prepared my mind that a redraw will still hold on the 15th as worst case scenario.
baltimore_p
Registered Users (C)
From a lame man point of view,I was expecting more from Mr.White yesterday. To be honest,is responses yesterday just dropped my confidence in the case a little beat.I am less optimistic,in order to handle any disappointment on the 12th,i have prepared my mind that a redraw will still hold on the 15th as worst case scenario.
@bouyantee, stop being a man of little 'faith'! In court the full arguments by both Counsels will be developed further. Like Kwame pointed out anything can happen in court. Keep your fingers crossed.
here
The DV 2012 first drawing has been completely random. Please check the “DV 2012 First Drawing Randomness” document for detailed explanation.
Item 8 of DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN, refers to the laws and is highlighting parts of regulations of 22 CFR § 42.33(c), but it totally fails in mapping the real events to the referred regulations. He says “the software we used fail to randomize the DV entries” as the main point. His assumption that the software failed to randomize is completely wrong. We need to clarify that it didn’t fail to randomize, it just failed to use the programmers expected method. Actually the method which was unintentionally used, is a real random function and as a matter of fact is a more random function comparing to most of pseudo random functions that the programmer wanted to use one of them. (check Appendix B section 2 of the “DV 2012 First Drawing Randomness” document under the title “How to Generate Random Numbers” for detailed explanations).
The initial statement from DOS has been extremely MISLEADING by relating the randomness of selections to the distribution of selected people across the registration period. DOS initial statement is the big mistake and completely wrong. In general there is no direct relation between a standalone random selection method or it’s results with the day of the application being filed.
There are many unknown and unclear questions and concerns that need to be addressed before proceeding to next step. no matter what will be the answer, ambiguities need to be checked and clarified. “the method used is correct” or “the method used needs to be changed”, either way more time is needed to choose the right answer. Considering the facts including but not limited to the following examples, obviously DOS is not clear on many of the questions and concerns and they are not ready to rush into another drawing without addressing all the concerns:
a. UNSTABLE explanations and data in the announcements and other correspondences from DOS. e.g. In their first announcement they said more than 90% of the people have been selected from the first two days, while in the DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN, he says that 98% rather than 90%.
b. CONTRADICTORY explanations and data in the announcements and other correspondences from DOS. e.g. In “DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN”, the “2% of entries” and the “2% of winners” has been used interchangeably which can NOT be correct. 2% of applicants doesn’t necessarily mean 2% of the selectees as well, unless the 2% applicants from other days are distributed “normally” in between the applicants of the first two days which is not true, other wise it will be contradictory to the item no 8 of “DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN” as it proves that the DB optimization has been a random function.
c. AMBIGUOUS announcements with the nature of hiding some facts and not being clear. e.g. first they announced that web site is down due to a technical problem and they never mentioned anything about the doubts and possibility of an error in the drawing itself.
“Visa” or “Initial Selection”:
Talking about visa is a misleading statement, we are not requesting a visa to be issued to this people, but we are asking that the status of being “selected for further processing” be reinstated.
“Privilege” or “Right”:
any privilege given to people based on regulations after being assigned to someone can not be revoked without a reason. It can be cancelled only based on law and regulations. So any privilege after being assigned creates a right to the beneficiary of that privilege to use that privilege untill another law or regulation takes that privilege away. As an example think of the driving license where it is a privilege and not a right, but people who have got that privilege have the right to go to the court if their driving license is revoked wrongfully.
Considering the fact that database has been automatically touching the data and the order of data (when optimizing), it is clear that there has always been some “not-controlled” factors integrated into the mechanics of drawing, which DOS has been aware of and have always let it to be included in the selection process without interrupting the integrity of the whole drawing.
(if this is an issue then more time is needed to fix this before any actions including a possible second drawing, and if this is not an issue, as it is assumed by DOS and declared by Kirt Amin, then the whole selection of this year is also good because the error happened this year is of the same nature as to the automatic optimization in the sense of being a “not-controlled” factor)
People have discarded their original confirmation code after first drawing as it wasn’t needed any more. They can’t check the results of any other possible drawing and this is a direct consequence of the cancellation of first drawing.
The solution from the DOS for sending emails is not enough method of fixing this problem, duo to possiblities like: changed email address, wrong email address, uncertainty of email delivery methods(which doesn’t assure that applicants have received the confirmation email – We already know people who haven’t received that email).
Also considering the fact that DOS has always said that they will never send any emails out to applicants, many people have discarded these emails even though they may had received it.
so we need time to recover this problem in its best possible way.
It is to the public interest to make sure that the error has been reviewed properly and will be recovered deploying the best possible methods. DOS didn’t have enough time to diagnose the error, therefore more time is needed to review the details of error and to find best possible resolutions.
This error obviously needs more time than the 6-8 days DOS spent for this purpose. The fact that even the OIG’s internal investigation, after more than 40 days, is not yet done, is a good example showing the extent of time needed for properly diagnosing such an important issue.
(DOS stopped the web site on about 6-7 May and they announced to public on may the 13th. so they have had only 6-8 days to find, examine, diagnose the situation, and to find a resolution which is clearly not enough time for such an important situation.)
It is to the public interest to return the confidence and trust of the people back, to the program specifically, and to the DOS and US government in general, by showing that enough time and effort has been allocated for analyzing the situation with any possible outcome and recovery suggestions. The reputation has been extremely damaged and there are many questions and doubts after such big mistakes and unorganized behaviors from DOS which shows the extent of the need for allocating enough time for choosing the best possible path. Rushing into a second drawing is not helping to anybody. Postponing the drawing for assurance of the accuracy is much less harmful than rushing into a second drawing with a very high chances of more mistakes which is very much probable due to the instability and signs of inaccuracy seen in the correspondences from DOS.
The regulations of 22 CFR § 42.33(c) is asking for selection only between the applicants meeting all of the requirements of 22 CFR § 42.33(c), while DOS has claimed (in one of their announcements or FAQ or on the site) that they will run the drawing first and then they will check the validity of applicants, which is clearly against the requirements of the regulations.
Worst Case Scenario: in the worst case, Let’s assume that the first drawing for any reasons need to be cancelled. We can not be ignorant and just choose the simplest solution and simply re-draw for a second time without considering the fact that there has been a mistake before. Therefore there is a need to postpone another drawing until the proper methods of recovery are examined and defined. There are many possibilities which are more fair and preferred choices minimizing the impact of the mistake on the affected people while complying with all related legal and law requirements.
As an example, A solution suggests a method that ASSURES the re-selection of a PORTION of the people who have won in the first drawing to be included in the list of winners for the second drawing. Though this method is not inclusive, it reduces the impacts while it complies with laws and regulations.
Thanks for the encouragement. Are they fighting to re-instate the entire 100k that was selected on May 1st or just the portion of 22k?@bouyantee, stop being a man of little 'faith'! In court the full arguments by both Counsels will be developed further. Like Kwame pointed out anything can happen in court. Keep your fingers crossed.
baltimore_p
Registered Users (C)
Thanks for the encouragement. Are they fighting to re-instate the entire 100k that was selected on May 1st or just the portion of 22k?
@bouyantee, a portion, i.e. the 22k though "As an example, A solution suggests a method that ASSURES the re-selection of a PORTION of the people who have won in the first drawing to be included in the list of winners for the second drawing. Though this method is not inclusive, it reduces the impacts while it complies with laws and regulations." is a bit ambiguous.
whatever it is, it will stunt peoples... either the 22k ir dos..
Whatever the court pronouncement is come July 12 about this case. We will accept it in good faith. And overall wait for the result of July 15. But i have strange feelings that Juky 12 court pronouncement will stunt a lot of ppl..
Just my 2 cent
I do not see at as unstable. At the beginning they did not know the exact number and were just sure that it was more than 90%. Later on they calculated the precise number and it happened to be 98%. Seems very reasonable to me, I would do it exactly like thata. UNSTABLE explanations and data in the announcements and other correspondences from DOS. e.g. In their first announcement they said more than 90% of the people have been selected from the first two days, while in the DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN, he says that 98% rather than 90%.
b. CONTRADICTORY explanations and data in the announcements and other correspondences from DOS. e.g. In “DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN”, the “2% of entries” and the “2% of winners” has been used interchangeably which can NOT be correct. 2% of applicants doesn’t necessarily mean 2% of the selectees as well, unless the 2% applicants from other days are distributed “normally” in between the applicants of the first two days which is not true, other wise it will be contradictory to the item no 8 of “DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN” as it proves that the DB optimization has been a random function.
I do not see 2% in the affidavit even once, and I see 98% exactly once. What is he talkong about?
"initial selection" is not mentioned in the affidavit.c. AMBIGUOUS announcements with the nature of hiding some facts and not being clear. e.g. first they announced that web site is down due to a technical problem and they never mentioned anything about the doubts and possibility of an error in the drawing itself.
“Visa” or “Initial Selection”:
Talking about visa is a misleading statement, we are not requesting a visa to be issued to this people, but we are asking that the status of being “selected for further processing” be reinstated.
same for either one. What is he talking about?“Privilege” or “Right”:
Thanks for this opinion, but I think it is not really accurate.Raevsky's posts are the only ones worth reading on this thread. For what it's worth, I too think Craig is Egor+Sandra but it doesn't really matter.
I personally find CraigToomy's and Kwame O's posts very useful.
CraigToomy (Egor on blog.visarefusal.com) provides a lot of factual data from the court that I am not subscribed to. I would not be able to follow the process so close without his posts. Sandra (on blog.visarefusal.com) sometimes reposts his posts
Kwame O is trying to cover my lack of judicial education. I am very grateful to him for that. I wish I could have what he has. I think I have enough analytical skills. Unfortunately, I am lacking education and tools for analysis and for court documents.
or a hold until the investigation is done... & that would penalize everyone
The worst pronouncement that can happen in the court come July 12,is to re-instate the 22k to the recent random redrawer winners or 78k.I dont think anything more than that can happen.
maybe yes, maybe not, we will know in less than 72 hours
There maybe no motion granted in favor of Mr white as the scenero is going come July 12.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.