Friends, Please Contribute. We are closer and closer and we do need to support Mr. Kurzban's efforts. Contribute whatever you can.
Armande: Please find attached our reply brief. The oral argument is set for May 11, 2012.
Kurzban Kurzban
Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A
Ira Kurzban
Click here: Our Answer to DOS
My suggestion at this point is that the Lawyer also sets up a Paypal account. It's VERY easy and free to do so. Nearly everyone has a paypal account these days.
ReplyDeleteThis way people can safely send money whenever they want and they don't have to go through phone calls or Western Union, both of which are not the easiest or safest way for those outside the US (e.g. phone communications are not encrypted and I can see how many, especially outside the US, may not be comfortable transmitting their credit card information over the phone).
Also, paypal would remove the need to send a minimum of $50 at a time.
At this point, ANY donation is better than no donations, so why not allow people to safely send even less than $50 at a time?
we already discussed that a long time ago and the answer is: there cannot be a Paypal account.
Delete+1
ReplyDeleteOK !!
ReplyDeleteI will send another $100 soon again.
Thank you Mr. KURZBAN and our administrators.
Mr. Kurzban didn't say anything about Chen's claim that winners were chosen simply on a "first come first serve" basis. This is not true. First, there are applicants who were not chosen at all, and there are husbands and wives where only one of them were chosen as a winner.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some winners on Facebook DV lottery website have posted their case numbers and they are lower then for those winners who also submitted on Oct.5th but before them. That means that the random program did work during the selection process. Otherwise, the case numbers would be in the same order as the database entries, that is in agreement with the time of submission and confirmation numbers.
hello may i ask if this fight is for the 2% as the recent post on facebook page seems to be for the 2% alone . Admin can you please help me clarfy this as I am a bit confused here.
ReplyDeleteIt is very strange there still are no comments from the lawyer about the district court decision as of April 3rd. What is the next step about that? Any plans changed? Just any comments?
ReplyDeleteI would expect at least a brief note from him, this decision seems to be quite an event, the strongest argument so far failed.
>We are trying to get the case reopened under the theory of estoppel against the government which we believe to be the strongest argument, quoted Mr. Kurzban as of 02/02/2012
Have the arguments been reranked since 02/02? The old argument of randomness per Oxford/Webster dictionary was considered to be even weaker. Is it still weaker?
What about 2% argument (randomness argument shrunk just for 2% of winners)? That was a latest addition to the family of arguments, added after 02/02/2012. Is it stronger or weaker than estoppel argument that was denied?