Litigation update this week

[jayo2k]

I know they are human, i think you didn't get me, what i meant by bangladesh was that their chances are so so so slim that for them to be selected twice is almost a miracle... 7 millions entries (well, lot & lot of cheaters as well) for about 7-8 000 selectees...

Jayo2k thank GOD u re not from Bangladesh.But at the sametime they re still humans like u and me.Nobody is discriminating.As of the Bangladesh boy its still does not justify the unfairness of a true random selection.

 

[Corewin]

How do you see 1335? I see only 2.

I'm also see only 2 because they deleted all my posts, Alex, you have replyed on them 2 days ago I guess that you remember what they were about,
if not then you can find out here
http brokencontrollers.com/why-mister-s-ken-white-law-action-whould-be-failed-t28888903.php

And it's not a first time I see they deleting my posts from here, otherwise they do not delete flood from persons which come and write about 15 messeges :"Sign this petition"
It really looks like they rushing people to do so. Thats why I'm asking you guys to think first before you do.
I doubt they have any limitation on posting comments here.
Lolz, no pasaran!!

 

[raevsky]

It looks my answers are gone as well. Well, it is a private forum. Anyway, I got the idea.

 

[deekodesk]

Does People can Cheat in lottery system also..like one poster mention than few people cheat to get lottery visa..and he is selected 2 times in many entries..

 

[jayo2k]

one guy from bangladesh submited 2 800 entries... more cheaters = better chance for us... I am sure that nigeria also has lot of cheaters... well, africa (like europe as well), so for me the chances are quite "good"
& you know thatguy claiming winning twice with 2 entries might very well just lying to make other peoples cheat thus getting rid of competition

Does People can Cheat in lottery system also..like one poster mention than few people cheat to get lottery visa..and he is selected 2 times in many entries..

 

[Corewin]

I don't see the point of this posts - they disqualify all the dublicate entiries. But they can't influence on how people act, they just can write and publish the rules for the program.

 

[ololo12]

@Jayo2k...... WTF, 2800 entries from one person???? That nigga's generation gotta be banned for life from entering the lottery........... Holy Moses

 

[Samusoni]

The judge can throw the entire case out within seconds due to teh fact that it was declared not a random lottery according to the rules.

Possible, but unlikely

BTW a man is now charged with fraud for paying off his loans when by error $ 100,000.- was put in his account and he used immediately $ 60,000 of that money to pay off his debt...

Just another example of winning or receiving something that wasn't suppose to be yours doesn't mean you can keep it....this lottery was ruled not eligible and IMO will never be eligible due to the comp. glitch.

I don't know why you keep throwing in this irrelevent example that thas been shown over and over to be inapplicable to this case.

In your example, if the bank offers the public to submit their names for a random drawing and a random winner would be selected to receive $100 000; then the bank erroneously awards the $100 000 to someone who had entered the draw; then the bank has no case in retrieving the money if already spent (by the "winner"). Two cases of lottery errors have been presented in this forum; and in both cases the erroneous winners kept their money.

 

[bentlebee]

Possible, but unlikely

I don't know why you keep throwing in this irrelevent example that thas been shown over and over to be inapplicable to this case.

In your example, if the bank offers the public to submit their names for a random drawing and a random winner would be selected to receive $100 000; then the bank erroneously awards the $100 000 to someone who had entered the draw; then the bank has no case in retrieving the money if already spent (by the "winner"). Two cases of lottery errors have been presented in this forum; and in both cases the erroneous winners kept their money.

I have not seen any winners keeping the fake winnings so please provide proof of that...

 

[CraigToomy]

I have not seen any winners keeping the fake winnings so please provide proof of that...

http://www.news4jax.com/news/28320199/detail.html and there's more.

 

[raevsky]

The way casino defines who wins and who loses is not regulated by any law. That is up to casino to figure that out. However, once the winner is declared, the money are paid. That is the law of private business.
For DV lottery everything is different.

 

[Dubbies]

a Congressman said that the case has been accepted & that DOS have until august 21 to respond... for all those who whished 22k failure do you know what that means...?
Even if july 15 is still happening, the results would be either void or on hold until that case is over & won't be over before august 21 (end of the fiscal year)... I never though it will go this far...

Sorry Jayo2k, but where did u get these news from? As far as I know, what I read was that a congressman was concerned about the error made on the previous result, and the it inconvinences it caused the ex 22k winners, and his staff will continue to monitor the situation closely as the Department evaluates the cause of the initial computer error, and prepares for the rescheduled lottery in July! So pls, could to provide the source to ur info?????

 

[Obama]

.

 

[Mele]

As far as am concern, OIG & d so called Congressman is interested in what actually lead to d invalidated result. Nobody ever disputes the DOS in its bid to re-reun d lottery but for glitch which suppose to have been notice b4 d results are made public. They r much more after knowing the cause of the glitch & closely monitor the re-run.. Its only DV22,000 Mr. White that are manipulating things in their favour so as to be recognise by fire by force. Any sensible public officer can’t go against law of a public dept due to a lucky few.

DV22k actually think they r above d DOS law of fairness & equity. So its DV22k against the world!!!

 

[CraigToomy]

Filed & Entered: 06/28/2011 Motion to Certify Class
Filed & Entered: 06/28/2011 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

 

[raevsky]

So, what is going on right now.
Mr. White is basing the main argument like this:

DOS will argue it was required to break its written commitment to 22 000 individuals to comply with a Congressional mandate. This is not true. The key mandate that Congress placed on the DOS is that petitioners qualify “through random selection”. 8 USC §1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). Although DOS did mismanage the running of the lottery and generate the results in an unusual way as a result of apparent computer glitch, the critical failure was not to properly and objectively consider, after the event of drawing, if the outcome was or was not random as required by Congress.

For reference 8 USC §1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II) is

Aliens who qualify, through random selection, for a visa under section 1153 (c) of this title shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected

The idea is the following.
According to Mr. White, random is defined in English dictionary as "without definite aim or purpose".
Then, according to 8 USC §1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II), the results are random within that definition of random. Then once the results are random, they are valid even though the glitch happened and the results were obtained by a buggy software.

The mistake Mr. White is doing is he uses the definition from an ancient dictionary (published in 1919), http://books.google.com/books?id=Ek...e&q="without definite aim or purpose"&f=false which really has the only meaning of random defined as "without definite aim or purpose".

Modern dictionaries define random differently. Like webster.com

Definition of RANDOM
1
a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern
b : made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>

2
a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes>
b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>;
also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>

Red meaning is the old one, from 1919 year dictionary Mr. White is using. However, there is the one defined in 22 cfr 42.33 (corresponds to green one from webster) http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/42-33-diversity-immigrants-19720788

all numbers assigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by a computer using standard computer software for that purpose

The meaning defined in 22 cfr 42.33 uses computers, which were not available in 1919. It is absolutely obvious the law used a meaning of random different from "without definite aim or purpose". The court will follow the meaning from 22 cfr 42.33 which is 2b from webster.com

Mr. White's arguments are useless within that meaning.

Other than that:
2 attorneys from DOJ will represent all 10 defendants.
All defendants have to provide answers by 8/21/2011
classification as class action was filed
request for injunction was filed

I am not aware of anything else at this point.

On another side,
OIG is probably going to wait until 8/21 with their answer as well.
They will put their results on the website (mainly more info about the bug and why it occured), and will open discussion for general public. According to the discussion, they might want to re-investigate if public wants more info. That is what they promise.

Also, Congress is involved. Senator Lieberman is monitoring the situation. He might be able to get more information (about causes of initial computer error) from DOS via Congressional correspondence.

Also, some individuals (probably, CraigToomy is among them) requested the source code of the buggy program via FIOA. Hopefully they will publish it here if their request comes through.

 

[CraigToomy]

Also, some individuals (probably, CraigToomy is among them) requested the source code of the buggy program via FIOA. Hopefully they will publish it here if their request comes through.

Absolutely. Request filed on June, 24th, they have 20 business days to reply.

 

[CraigToomy]

Exhibits:

1) Winning notification
2) dvlottery.state.gov printout with announcement
3) email with a link to confirmation number
4) letter to Donahue
5) letter to OIG
6) KCC letters to destroy applications
7) letter to OIG (???)
8) letter of Erich Hart
9) KCC instructions
10) KCC intructions for AOS
11) Letter of Congressional Immigration Subcommittee

 

[raevsky]

Can you access the exhibits? Can you put them here?

 

[raevsky]

I see there are more exhibits than the 11 you mentioned. At least 22+1+13 = 36. However, I cannot access them.

1.

June 28, 2011 00:00
Preliminary Injunction

Document: 6

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by AJITUM JAMES AKABA, NARGIZA AKHMEDOVA, AMANI MURSHED AL MAAMARI, ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ ALVAREZ, KAMIL EZZ ELDIN AMIN, OMAYMA IZZELDIN KAMIL AMIN, LUC VAN BRAEKEL, VINCENZO CARAFONE, EMAN AHMED EMAD ELZOHEARY, NEDA GHEMMAGHAMI FARAHANI, ARMANDE GIL, JAMAL GLIM, MUSTAFA GULBUDAK, ANNA GUNYA, YOSIF MOURAD IBRAHIM, MOHAMED IFEGH, CHRISTINA OMOJEVBE IGBOIN, STEPHANIE CHRISTELLE JEANJEAN, MOSES KAKEETO, DIEUDONNE KUATE, ANTON KURAEV, DEBORAH LEMPOGO, OLGA LEONOVA, DHANA MATHEMA, STUART MCBRIEN, JOVANKA NICOLIC, VICTOR OLAOLUWA OKE, MARCO PAVESE, ILYA SMIRNOV, CARINA STEYL, PEGI STOILKOVA, SABINA TIMILSINA, ANDUALEM TIRUSEW WUBE, MASAKO YAMAO, HIROSHI YAMASHIROYA, IVA ZAFIROVA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Text of Proposed Order)(White, Kenneth)
2.

June 28, 2011 00:00
Certify Class

Document: 5

MOTION to Certify Class by AJITUM JAMES AKABA, NARGIZA AKHMEDOVA, AMANI MURSHED AL MAAMARI, ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ ALVAREZ, KAMIL EZZ ELDIN AMIN, OMAYMA IZZELDIN KAMIL AMIN, LUC VAN BRAEKEL, VINCENZO CARAFONE, EMAN AHMED EMAD ELZOHEARY, NEDA GHEMMAGHAMI FARAHANI, ARMANDE GIL, JAMAL GLIM, MUSTAFA GULBUDAK, ANNA GUNYA, YOSIF MOURAD IBRAHIM, MOHAMED IFEGH, CHRISTINA OMOJEVBE IGBOIN, STEPHANIE CHRISTELLE JEANJEAN, MOSES KAKEETO, DIEUDONNE KUATE, ANTON KURAEV, DEBORAH LEMPOGO, OLGA LEONOVA, DHANA MATHEMA, STUART MCBRIEN, JOVANKA NICOLIC, VICTOR OLAOLUWA OKE, MARCO PAVESE, ILYA SMIRNOV, CARINA STEYL, PEGI STOILKOVA, SABINA TIMILSINA, ANDUALEM TIRUSEW WUBE, MASAKO YAMAO, HIROSHI YAMASHIROYA, IVA ZAFIROVA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(White, Kenneth)
3.

June 21, 2011 00:00
Summons

Document:

SUMMONS (12) Issued as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
4.

June 21, 2011 00:00
Complaint

Document: 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 461039844) filed by VICTOR OLAOLUWA OKE, ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ ALVAREZ, NEDA GHEMMAGHAMI FARAHANI, IVA ZAFIROVA, EMAN AHMED EMAD ELZOHEARY, DHANA MATHEMA, ILYA SMIRNOV, NARGIZA AKHMEDOVA, MOHAMED IFEGH, PEGI STOILKOVA, MARCO PAVESE, MUSTAFA GULBUDAK, AMANI MURSHED AL MAAMARI, MASAKO YAMAO, DIEUDONNE KUATE, MOSES KAKEETO, ANTON KURAEV, HIROSHI YAMASHIROYA, ANDUALEM TIRUSEW WUBE, ARMANDE GIL, VINCENZO CARAFONE, ANNA GUNYA, YOSIF MOURAD IBRAHIM, JAMAL GLIM, CHRISTINA OMOJEVBE IGBOIN, AJITUM JAMES AKABA, OLGA LEONOVA, STEPHANIE CHRISTELLE JEANJEAN, STUART MCBRIEN, CARINA STEYL, OMAYMA IZZELDIN KAMIL AMIN, SABINA TIMILSINA, LUC VAN BRAEKEL, KAMIL EZZ ELDIN AMIN, DEBORAH LEMPOGO, JOVANKA NICOLIC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit List, # 13 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 06/21/2011)