Now now, we aren't defending the indefensible, merely a broad concept that enables the government to defend indefensible acts indirectly.
While we may find this usage of it to defend this particular indefensible action to be, well, indefensible, I'm sure there are lots of other indefensible actions we would love for the government to indirectly defend using this broad concept!
Like, erm... hmm... help me out here? Anyone?
One thing that comes to mind immediately is that undermining sovereign immunity would also undermine Native American tribal sovereign immunity. Opening up tribal governments to lawsuits over laws/policies they have implemented on their own reservations would be catastrophic.
Given that the tribes are ostensibly sovereign from the US government, how would US Federal Government’s sovereign immunity affect theirs?
Lanz on
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
If there's one thing the United States of America is known for, it's the recognition of the natives' sovereignty.
Jesus jumped up Christ MechMantis.
+13
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Imagine in an argument about the USA abusing one of the native populations of the continent invoking another group of natives on the continent as some sort of "gotcha" or "checkmate." That is some some brass fucking balls and not in the good way.
Again, I am not sure the argument follows that if US sovereign immunity is not defended, that aboriginal nations’ sovereign immunity shall fall. It’s been invoked but not defended in teh thread so far
Imagine in an argument about the USA abusing one of the native populations of the continent invoking another group of natives on the continent as some sort of "gotcha" or "checkmate." That is some some brass fucking balls and not in the good way.
It wasn't intended to be a "gotcha" or a "checkmate", it's how eroding legal precedent works.
"This concept was defeated in this area. Let's start filing other suits to see where else this concept no longer applies."
One can be super not chill with getting rid of sovereign immunity as a concept entirely while also objecting to what can be done under its purview in certain cases.
EDIT: To answer Lanz's question: Depending on what arguments are made with regards to sovereign immunity, and what the court finds, it may not just be a case of "ICE actions and ICE actions only are not covered by sovereign immunity", hence why the US government doesn't even want to let this anywhere NEAR the courts.
Again, I am not sure the argument follows that if US sovereign immunity is not defended, that aboriginal nations’ sovereign immunity shall fall. It’s been invoked but not defended in teh thread so far
Tribal immunity does descend from US sovereign immunity, so if SCOTUS determines US has no sovereign immunity nor do any subservient bodies including tribes because the Constitution overrides treaties.
This isn't why the argument came up, but this is one of many examples why sovereign immunity needs reform, not abolishment.
Its broken, abused, yet repealing it opens a pandora box of much worse possible things. And a lot of good ones that should happen but reforms that cant happen with it in place.
+2
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Since we have no idea how exactly this case interacts with sovereign immunity, or what the administration's argument is, let's be done discussing sovereign immunity in general, or what hypothetical argument might be made in its support.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Since we have no idea how exactly this case interacts with sovereign immunity, or what the administration's argument is, let's be done discussing sovereign immunity in general, or what hypothetical argument might be made in its support.
If it helps or clarifies, from the article that mentioned it (the Reason one, the ABC article doesn’t mention it specifically), the interaction is that the government cited sovereign immunity as the reason that the case should be dismissed.
I’ve tried to find the filing from February but no luck so far. I’m also trying to find what the trump admin’s reasoning presented for dismissal was
Since we have no idea how exactly this case interacts with sovereign immunity, or what the administration's argument is, let's be done discussing sovereign immunity in general, or what hypothetical argument might be made in its support.
If it helps or clarifies, from the article that mentioned it (the Reason one, the ABC article doesn’t mention it specifically), the interaction is that the government cited sovereign immunity as the reason that the case should be dismissed.
I’ve tried to find the filing from February but no luck so far. I’m also trying to find what the trump admin’s reasoning presented for dismissal was
IMMA GONNA LIGHT THIS THREAD ON FIRE AND RUN AWAY THEN.
Actually, it's mostly I really don't want to read a court doc and I'm not a lawyer anyway, but here's where it is.
E:
This seems like the starting/summary bit though:
As we stated in our motion, there are three independent reasons why Mr. Ravi’s complaint must be dismissed. First, although he labels his case as one arising under a contract, Mr. Ravi plainly pleads a fraud case. In totality, Mr. Ravi claims that he was induced by fraud to register with the University and now (having had his visa status revoked) demands his money back. That claim of “fraudulent inducement” is a tort, and not remediable in this Court. Def. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6 (hereafter, Mot.) at 5-6.
Second, Mr. Ravi does not plausibly plead all the necessary elements of his Tucker Act contract claim. His pleading acknowledges that there was no mutuality of intent to contract on the part of the Government. It further fails to provide any plausible explanation as to how undercover law enforcement officers (effectuating a law enforcement operation) could have genuinely obligated the Government to provide Mr. Ravi with educational services. Mot. at 4-5.
Third, even assuming Mr. Ravi could articulate a valid contract case, his suit would still be barred by the sovereign capacity doctrine. The activities that Mr. Ravi identifies as “fraud” were unquestionably tied to the Government’s law enforcement work, which is not susceptible to contract-based claims under the Tucker Act. Mot. at 6-7.
EDIT: If the Biden Administration was pursuing actual "justice" for the victims of this, they would put forth an argument only about the problems of the case as it was filed, and also include recommendations in the motion as to how the plaintiff could re-file to make a better/more valid case in order to succeed. Instead, they say "Well it isn't valid because of this technicality, and it also isn't valid because of this law enforcement bullshit, and even if it were valid after those two criteria we're gonna say it isn't because of sovereign immunity."
Also wait am I reading number 2 right? It almost sounds like their argument is that his motion should be dismissed because how could the plaintiff expect cops to actually make a real effort to provide an education?
That is why it’s a scam; it is a scam because they fraudulently promoted an education they could not provide for the sole purpose of targeting desperate student immigrants. Their excuse is he’s acknowledging the reality of the situation in the present, which makes no sense because of course they couldn’t obligate the government to provide an education, but they still created a fraudulent college to begin with and made the promises of it, as part of their work as federal government agents. That’s why the government has the liability, because enough people up the chain okayed this project!
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
+2
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Now now, we aren't defending the indefensible, merely a broad concept that enables the government to defend indefensible acts indirectly.
While we may find this usage of it to defend this particular indefensible action to be, well, indefensible, I'm sure there are lots of other indefensible actions we would love for the government to indirectly defend using this broad concept!
Like, erm... hmm... help me out here? Anyone?
Please aspire to a more constructive level of discourse.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
EDIT: If the Biden Administration was pursuing actual "justice" for the victims of this, they would put forth an argument only about the problems of the case as it was filed, and also include recommendations in the motion as to how the plaintiff could re-file to make a better/more valid case in order to succeed. Instead, they say "Well it isn't valid because of this technicality, and it also isn't valid because of this law enforcement bullshit, and even if it were valid after those two criteria we're gonna say it isn't because of sovereign immunity."
I’m surprised they didn’t argue administrative exhaustion. Usually they require plaintiffs before they can even sue, to file a claim with the agency in question. Appeal that claim to final ruling and then sue. One of the agencies I did contract work for, their attorneys go to move was to request an extension for filing. Then file a motion to dismiss because they had not exhausted agency remedies. Then when they file a claim, wait 180 days and deny it based on the fact they took to long to file the claim. Then when they go back to court. They are a year and a half into it and at square one.
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
Now, any reasonable person would assume that a supposedly accredited university making claims about providing an education and allowing visas to not expire in exchange for tuition fees is the makings of a contract, but the "reasonable person would conclude" argument doesn't actually apply all the time in the courts.
It's difficult to evaluate much of this without knowing exactly what a Tucker Act claim is and what the specific criteria for it are and all the other shit you pay a lawyer to know.
Like, you'll note that #2 does not just say "ICE couldn't provide him the education he paid for anyway, so he loses". It says that he "does not plausibly plead all the necessary elements of his Tucker Act contract claim". The fact that ICE can't provide him an education seems to exist to support that idea. There's some sort of criteria going on here, which is pretty common for these type of things.
Under the Tucker Act of 1887, the United States waived its sovereign immunity as to certain kinds of claims. Although the government is immune to lawsuits as a general rule, the Tucker Act exposes the government to liability for certain claims.
It seems like this is the law that defines how one gets around sovereign immunity. But again, you'd need to be better versed in this kind of law to know the specific details of the Tucker Act itself or if there's some other similar acts to get around sovereign immunity with different criteria.
It's difficult to evaluate much of this without knowing exactly what a Tucker Act claim is and what the specific criteria for it are and all the other shit you pay a lawyer to know.
Like, you'll note that #2 does not just say "ICE couldn't provide him the education he paid for anyway, so he loses". It says that he "does not plausibly plead all the necessary elements of his Tucker Act contract claim". The fact that ICE can't provide him an education seems to exist to support that idea. There's some sort of criteria going on here, which is pretty common for these type of things.
Under the Tucker Act of 1887, the United States waived its sovereign immunity as to certain kinds of claims. Although the government is immune to lawsuits as a general rule, the Tucker Act exposes the government to liability for certain claims.
It seems like this is the law that defines how one gets around sovereign immunity. But again, you'd need to be better versed in this kind of law to know the specific details of the Tucker Act itself or if there's some other similar acts to get around sovereign immunity with different criteria.
It doesn’t sound so complicated that you need to be “better versed in the law”
Specifically, the Act extended the original Court of Claims’ jurisdiction to include claims for liquidated or unliquidated damages arising from the Constitution (including takings claims under the Fifth Amendment), a federal statute or regulation, and claims in cases not arising in tort. The relevant text of the Act is codified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a) and 1491.
Specifically, the Tucker Act permits three kinds of claims against the government: (1) contractual claims, (2) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff seeks the return of money paid to the government and (3) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to payment by the government.
Today, jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims is vested in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The United States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims in excess of $10,000, while another statutory grant of jurisdiction—the so-called “Little Tucker Act”—allows the court to entertain similar suits against the United States for claims of less than $10,000 concurrently with the federal district courts. Prior to the passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, however, this jurisdiction was vested in the original U.S. Court of Claims.
The governments argument seems to be “well, none of it was real, therefore the tucker act does not apply”
Which is kind of like saying “your honor, I couldn’t have killed the man, I was knocking over a bank at that time!”
Except then claiming if the government knocks over the bank with the underlying purpose of law enforcement, then it’s not really stealing now is it
+2
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I'm willing to accept that there may be Legal Reasons why the case can't progress in its current form and that justice needs to come by a different route. But even if true, it's a really bad look for them not to say "and here's what that route looks like, and we're going to demand accountability for this kind of bullshit."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Imagine in an argument about the USA abusing one of the native populations of the continent invoking another group of natives on the continent as some sort of "gotcha" or "checkmate." That is some some brass fucking balls and not in the good way.
You understand that the case is almost entirely about ICE screwing people from the country India right?
Yeah this is a lot of very hot language over what reads to me like pretty banal claim->motion->amended complaint cycle(and maybe some sloppy work by his lawyers - I looked up the lawyer he retained, and it seems to be a one person law firm in DC that does everything from business contracts, estate work, fighting foreclosures, DUI defense, etc... ).
Ravi is explicitly making a complaint for breach of contract. The government in (2) is arguing there isn't a contract because government agents running an undercover operation don't have the authority to make a contract obligating the US Government to provide the fake service- if he was suing the government because say he built the schools website and they didn't pay him, the government wouldn't be making this claim.
The government is also arguing (1) Ravi is actually making a fraud claim*, which is under a different court and (3) even if there is a valid contract the government is immune to contract claims under the sovereign capacity doctrine.
*one of the differentiators between fraud and breech of contract is that both parties needed to have the intent to actually follow through on the agreement for the later.
It is undisputed that the University of Farmington was an undercover operation
run by law enforcement agents to expose student visa fraud. See Am. Compl. ¶
1; Reply at 1, ECF No. 12. However, neither the government nor Mr. Ravi
explain the results of the University of Farmington operation and any
subsequent immigration proceedings pertaining to Mr. Ravi. The government
also does not raise the issue of the illegality of the alleged contract and whether
Mr. Ravi may recover money voluntarily exchanged in an undercover
transaction. The parties should be prepared to discuss these issues, whether the
court should consider these issues at this stage of the litigation, and whether
consideration of this additional information would convert the government’s
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., RCFC
12(d); Easter v. United States, 575 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting
that the court may in its discretion treat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim as a summary judgment motion if the court considers matters outside the
pleadings); Terry v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 645, 652 (2012) (noting that
the court may consider materials that are integral to the complaint, public
records, or materials that are otherwise appropriate for taking judicial notice
without conversion).
4. Putting aside issues of contract illegality, the government should be prepared to
address whether the government was entitled to retain the tuition money as part
of a certified undercover operation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1363a. The government
should also be prepared to discuss whether Mr. Ravi may recover his tuition
money by some other means than a breach of contract claim in this court, for
example, through any immigration proceedings.
He is maybe entitled to his money back, but a breach of contract lawsuit is probably not the correct type of lawsuit to file to get it. You need an account to get the transcripts from said conference.
I'd also like to file a motion to amend the thread title to include
It's difficult to evaluate much of this without knowing exactly what a Tucker Act claim is and what the specific criteria for it are and all the other shit you pay a lawyer to know.
Like, you'll note that #2 does not just say "ICE couldn't provide him the education he paid for anyway, so he loses". It says that he "does not plausibly plead all the necessary elements of his Tucker Act contract claim". The fact that ICE can't provide him an education seems to exist to support that idea. There's some sort of criteria going on here, which is pretty common for these type of things.
Under the Tucker Act of 1887, the United States waived its sovereign immunity as to certain kinds of claims. Although the government is immune to lawsuits as a general rule, the Tucker Act exposes the government to liability for certain claims.
It seems like this is the law that defines how one gets around sovereign immunity. But again, you'd need to be better versed in this kind of law to know the specific details of the Tucker Act itself or if there's some other similar acts to get around sovereign immunity with different criteria.
It doesn’t sound so complicated that you need to be “better versed in the law”
Specifically, the Act extended the original Court of Claims’ jurisdiction to include claims for liquidated or unliquidated damages arising from the Constitution (including takings claims under the Fifth Amendment), a federal statute or regulation, and claims in cases not arising in tort. The relevant text of the Act is codified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a) and 1491.
Specifically, the Tucker Act permits three kinds of claims against the government: (1) contractual claims, (2) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff seeks the return of money paid to the government and (3) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to payment by the government.
Today, jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims is vested in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The United States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims in excess of $10,000, while another statutory grant of jurisdiction—the so-called “Little Tucker Act”—allows the court to entertain similar suits against the United States for claims of less than $10,000 concurrently with the federal district courts. Prior to the passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, however, this jurisdiction was vested in the original U.S. Court of Claims.
The rest of the Tucker Act article
So what are all the necessary elements of a Tucker Act contract claim then?
Imagine in an argument about the USA abusing one of the native populations of the continent invoking another group of natives on the continent as some sort of "gotcha" or "checkmate." That is some some brass fucking balls and not in the good way.
You understand that the case is almost entirely about ICE screwing people from the country India right?
Now now, we aren't defending the indefensible, merely a broad concept that enables the government to defend indefensible acts indirectly.
While we may find this usage of it to defend this particular indefensible action to be, well, indefensible, I'm sure there are lots of other indefensible actions we would love for the government to indirectly defend using this broad concept!
Like, erm... hmm... help me out here? Anyone?
One thing that comes to mind immediately is that undermining sovereign immunity would also undermine Native American tribal sovereign immunity. Opening up tribal governments to lawsuits over laws/policies they have implemented on their own reservations would be catastrophic.
I'm willing to accept that there may be Legal Reasons why the case can't progress in its current form and that justice needs to come by a different route. But even if true, it's a really bad look for them not to say "and here's what that route looks like, and we're going to demand accountability for this kind of bullshit."
Looks like they kinda did that.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I'm willing to accept that there may be Legal Reasons why the case can't progress in its current form and that justice needs to come by a different route. But even if true, it's a really bad look for them not to say "and here's what that route looks like, and we're going to demand accountability for this kind of bullshit."
Looks like they kinda did that.
Maybe I'm just missing something, but where's the part where they said "go through these channels to procure justice"?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I still don't see why I should care about the legal technicalities. As a citizen, I don't want a government that uses the letter of the law to do evil. The only acceptable action by the Biden administration would be to just admit this was wrong and settle offering appropriate restitution to everyone harmed.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm willing to accept that there may be Legal Reasons why the case can't progress in its current form and that justice needs to come by a different route. But even if true, it's a really bad look for them not to say "and here's what that route looks like, and we're going to demand accountability for this kind of bullshit."
Looks like they kinda did that.
Maybe I'm just missing something, but where's the part where they said "go through these channels to procure justice"?
Tinwhiskers went over it pretty well, but it sounds like there are a couple of different possibilities, and the judge will address them, but it was part of the questions the judge asked for 10 days ago.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I still don't see why I should care about the legal technicalities. As a citizen, I don't want a government that uses the letter of the law to do evil. The only acceptable action by the Biden administration would be to just admit this was wrong and settle offering appropriate restitution to everyone harmed.
The problem is that the difference between breach of contract and (for example)fraud may seem like technicalities, but they are kind of technicalities the legal profession and principles are built on. Intentionality and capacity are important questions.
I still don't see why I should care about the legal technicalities. As a citizen, I don't want a government that uses the letter of the law to do evil. The only acceptable action by the Biden administration would be to just admit this was wrong and settle offering appropriate restitution to everyone harmed.
The problem is that the difference between breach of contract and (for example)fraud may seem like technicalities, but they are kind of technicalities the legal profession and principles are built on. Intentionality and capacity are important questions.
Important to making the legal process a byzantine maze that protects those with power while controlling those without, not to arriving at an actually just outcome.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+4
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I'm willing to accept that there may be Legal Reasons why the case can't progress in its current form and that justice needs to come by a different route. But even if true, it's a really bad look for them not to say "and here's what that route looks like, and we're going to demand accountability for this kind of bullshit."
Looks like they kinda did that.
Maybe I'm just missing something, but where's the part where they said "go through these channels to procure justice"?
Tinwhiskers went over it pretty well, but it sounds like there are a couple of different possibilities, and the judge will address them, but it was part of the questions the judge asked for 10 days ago.
Oh, I somehow missed the back half of the relevant post, thanks.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
The government creates fake corporations in sting operations all the time. IIRC they were part of both the Bud Dwyer case and the corruption car against a bunch of Tennessee state pols that ultimately led to Harold Ford Jr. losing his election.
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
The government creates fake corporations in sting operations all the time. IIRC they were part of both the Bud Dwyer case and the corruption car against a bunch of Tennessee state pols that ultimately led to Harold Ford Jr. losing his election.
Typically sting operations are to like....catch drug traffickers, Medicare supplier fraud, you know, serious crimes. Not identifying and deporting immigrants that it set up in the first place. That the government might justify its actions towards the later by its actions towards the former is basically the problem in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I think a lot of this is taking a long walk to arrive at somewhere other than the obvious destination. The Biden administration simply did not have to do what they chose to here. The program was wasteful, cruel and unhelpful and did not require defending.
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
The government creates fake corporations in sting operations all the time. IIRC they were part of both the Bud Dwyer case and the corruption car against a bunch of Tennessee state pols that ultimately led to Harold Ford Jr. losing his election.
Typically sting operations are to like....catch drug traffickers, Medicare supplier fraud, you know, serious crimes. Not identifying and deporting immigrants that it set up in the first place. That the government might justify its actions towards the later by its actions towards the former is basically the problem in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I think a lot of this is taking a long walk to arrive at somewhere other than the obvious destination. The Biden administration simply did not have to do what they chose to here. The program was wasteful, cruel and unhelpful and did not require defending.
It's not clear they are defending the program with their actions here though.
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
The government creates fake corporations in sting operations all the time. IIRC they were part of both the Bud Dwyer case and the corruption car against a bunch of Tennessee state pols that ultimately led to Harold Ford Jr. losing his election.
Typically sting operations are to like....catch drug traffickers, Medicare supplier fraud, you know, serious crimes. Not identifying and deporting immigrants that it set up in the first place. That the government might justify its actions towards the later by its actions towards the former is basically the problem in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I think a lot of this is taking a long walk to arrive at somewhere other than the obvious destination. The Biden administration simply did not have to do what they chose to here. The program was wasteful, cruel and unhelpful and did not require defending.
It's not clear they are defending the program with their actions here though.
That is literally the single most generous reading of the situation worth discussing and most ambiguous situations seldomly fall onto the most generous explanation.
The more likely outcome is that they believe that the government should be permitted to carry out such actions
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
The government creates fake corporations in sting operations all the time. IIRC they were part of both the Bud Dwyer case and the corruption car against a bunch of Tennessee state pols that ultimately led to Harold Ford Jr. losing his election.
Typically sting operations are to like....catch drug traffickers, Medicare supplier fraud, you know, serious crimes. Not identifying and deporting immigrants that it set up in the first place. That the government might justify its actions towards the later by its actions towards the former is basically the problem in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I think a lot of this is taking a long walk to arrive at somewhere other than the obvious destination. The Biden administration simply did not have to do what they chose to here. The program was wasteful, cruel and unhelpful and did not require defending.
It's not clear they are defending the program with their actions here though.
That is literally what is happening. The case was filed in court. The administrations lawyers are trying to defend the government by having it dismissed.
There is no super secret “oh the Biden admin really thinks this was unjust,” thing going on. Especially when part of their argument is that as a law enforcement endeavor the government holds sovereign immunity from lawsuits regarding the scam.
The Biden administration, like the Trump administration who tried to dismiss this suit before them, is in the wrong. Our government victimized these people and must give them restitution, not excuses. Full stop.
Three’s sovereign immunity claim seems just the most rules lawyering bullshit. “He made a contract based claim, and this is clearly related to law enforcement, therefore it cannot apply”
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
The government creates fake corporations in sting operations all the time. IIRC they were part of both the Bud Dwyer case and the corruption car against a bunch of Tennessee state pols that ultimately led to Harold Ford Jr. losing his election.
Typically sting operations are to like....catch drug traffickers, Medicare supplier fraud, you know, serious crimes. Not identifying and deporting immigrants that it set up in the first place. That the government might justify its actions towards the later by its actions towards the former is basically the problem in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I think a lot of this is taking a long walk to arrive at somewhere other than the obvious destination. The Biden administration simply did not have to do what they chose to here. The program was wasteful, cruel and unhelpful and did not require defending.
It's not clear they are defending the program with their actions here though.
I mean, I follow the news through here mostly, so I have no idea what plays in the main stream. And I will say there are lots of reasons why this could be not as bad as we think. However, going radio silent, after Harris specifically called it out as a bad program, does not look good.
I mean a huge portion of what people are so angry about with immigration stuff in general is a lack of transparency. If there is a legit reason for not walking back what happened here they should be fucking saying it. Not quietly telling judges to kill the case.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Also, just so we are all on the same page, it sounds like this was a program started under Obama.
The main change during Trump was that instead of just throwing up a website that said they were a university and then waiting to see if anyone applied, they started going out and trying to convince visa students to apply.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
"You can't sue the government for doing this" is not the same thing as "We thought this was a good idea". Governments just general don't like getting sued no matter what. "Come, sue us with a shody legal case" is not how governments express policy preferences.
Posts
Given that the tribes are ostensibly sovereign from the US government, how would US Federal Government’s sovereign immunity affect theirs?
Jesus jumped up Christ MechMantis.
I dunno, it seems like there has actually strangely been a lot of support coming from unexpected places lately when it comes to tribal sovereignty.
Didnt a bunch of South Dakota tribal response to COVID rely on that?
It wasn't intended to be a "gotcha" or a "checkmate", it's how eroding legal precedent works.
"This concept was defeated in this area. Let's start filing other suits to see where else this concept no longer applies."
One can be super not chill with getting rid of sovereign immunity as a concept entirely while also objecting to what can be done under its purview in certain cases.
EDIT: To answer Lanz's question: Depending on what arguments are made with regards to sovereign immunity, and what the court finds, it may not just be a case of "ICE actions and ICE actions only are not covered by sovereign immunity", hence why the US government doesn't even want to let this anywhere NEAR the courts.
Tribal immunity does descend from US sovereign immunity, so if SCOTUS determines US has no sovereign immunity nor do any subservient bodies including tribes because the Constitution overrides treaties.
This isn't why the argument came up, but this is one of many examples why sovereign immunity needs reform, not abolishment.
Its broken, abused, yet repealing it opens a pandora box of much worse possible things. And a lot of good ones that should happen but reforms that cant happen with it in place.
If it helps or clarifies, from the article that mentioned it (the Reason one, the ABC article doesn’t mention it specifically), the interaction is that the government cited sovereign immunity as the reason that the case should be dismissed.
I’ve tried to find the filing from February but no luck so far. I’m also trying to find what the trump admin’s reasoning presented for dismissal was
IMMA GONNA LIGHT THIS THREAD ON FIRE AND RUN AWAY THEN.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18462007/ravi-v-united-states/
Actually, it's mostly I really don't want to read a court doc and I'm not a lawyer anyway, but here's where it is.
E:
This seems like the starting/summary bit though:
EDIT: If the Biden Administration was pursuing actual "justice" for the victims of this, they would put forth an argument only about the problems of the case as it was filed, and also include recommendations in the motion as to how the plaintiff could re-file to make a better/more valid case in order to succeed. Instead, they say "Well it isn't valid because of this technicality, and it also isn't valid because of this law enforcement bullshit, and even if it were valid after those two criteria we're gonna say it isn't because of sovereign immunity."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Also wait am I reading number 2 right? It almost sounds like their argument is that his motion should be dismissed because how could the plaintiff expect cops to actually make a real effort to provide an education?
That is why it’s a scam; it is a scam because they fraudulently promoted an education they could not provide for the sole purpose of targeting desperate student immigrants. Their excuse is he’s acknowledging the reality of the situation in the present, which makes no sense because of course they couldn’t obligate the government to provide an education, but they still created a fraudulent college to begin with and made the promises of it, as part of their work as federal government agents. That’s why the government has the liability, because enough people up the chain okayed this project!
motherfuckers, they created a scam school. They promised an accredited education. They said this would be applicable for student visa qualifications. They took their goddamn money to the tune of millions of dollars. The hell it’s not applicable!
Please aspire to a more constructive level of discourse.
They're claiming that it can't be a breach of contract because there was no way they could have fulfilled what the plaintiff is claiming was the contract. They're saying they should be able to craft fake businesses and take money from people who engage with them in good faith and then charge them with crimes for doing so, and be unable to be held accountable for it because they did not just not intend to fulfill the ostensible goals but would have been unable to.
Now, any reasonable person would assume that a supposedly accredited university making claims about providing an education and allowing visas to not expire in exchange for tuition fees is the makings of a contract, but the "reasonable person would conclude" argument doesn't actually apply all the time in the courts.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Like, you'll note that #2 does not just say "ICE couldn't provide him the education he paid for anyway, so he loses". It says that he "does not plausibly plead all the necessary elements of his Tucker Act contract claim". The fact that ICE can't provide him an education seems to exist to support that idea. There's some sort of criteria going on here, which is pretty common for these type of things.
Given the description I can get from googling is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tucker_act It seems like this is the law that defines how one gets around sovereign immunity. But again, you'd need to be better versed in this kind of law to know the specific details of the Tucker Act itself or if there's some other similar acts to get around sovereign immunity with different criteria.
It doesn’t sound so complicated that you need to be “better versed in the law”
The rest of the Tucker Act article
Which is kind of like saying “your honor, I couldn’t have killed the man, I was knocking over a bank at that time!”
Except then claiming if the government knocks over the bank with the underlying purpose of law enforcement, then it’s not really stealing now is it
You understand that the case is almost entirely about ICE screwing people from the country India right?
Ravi is explicitly making a complaint for breach of contract. The government in (2) is arguing there isn't a contract because government agents running an undercover operation don't have the authority to make a contract obligating the US Government to provide the fake service- if he was suing the government because say he built the schools website and they didn't pay him, the government wouldn't be making this claim.
The government is also arguing (1) Ravi is actually making a fraud claim*, which is under a different court and (3) even if there is a valid contract the government is immune to contract claims under the sovereign capacity doctrine.
*one of the differentiators between fraud and breech of contract is that both parties needed to have the intent to actually follow through on the agreement for the later.
If you read the pre-conference notes from the judge on 3/17
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.41581/gov.uscourts.uscfc.41581.13.0_1.pdf
He is maybe entitled to his money back, but a breach of contract lawsuit is probably not the correct type of lawsuit to file to get it. You need an account to get the transcripts from said conference.
I'd also like to file a motion to amend the thread title to include
with the addition of none(0) to three(3) exclamation points. Pursuant to 9 P.A. § 3435
So what are all the necessary elements of a Tucker Act contract claim then?
Henroid's post was in direct response to this:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Looks like they kinda did that.
Maybe I'm just missing something, but where's the part where they said "go through these channels to procure justice"?
Tinwhiskers went over it pretty well, but it sounds like there are a couple of different possibilities, and the judge will address them, but it was part of the questions the judge asked for 10 days ago.
The problem is that the difference between breach of contract and (for example)fraud may seem like technicalities, but they are kind of technicalities the legal profession and principles are built on. Intentionality and capacity are important questions.
Important to making the legal process a byzantine maze that protects those with power while controlling those without, not to arriving at an actually just outcome.
Oh, I somehow missed the back half of the relevant post, thanks.
The government creates fake corporations in sting operations all the time. IIRC they were part of both the Bud Dwyer case and the corruption car against a bunch of Tennessee state pols that ultimately led to Harold Ford Jr. losing his election.
Typically sting operations are to like....catch drug traffickers, Medicare supplier fraud, you know, serious crimes. Not identifying and deporting immigrants that it set up in the first place. That the government might justify its actions towards the later by its actions towards the former is basically the problem in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I think a lot of this is taking a long walk to arrive at somewhere other than the obvious destination. The Biden administration simply did not have to do what they chose to here. The program was wasteful, cruel and unhelpful and did not require defending.
It's not clear they are defending the program with their actions here though.
That is literally the single most generous reading of the situation worth discussing and most ambiguous situations seldomly fall onto the most generous explanation.
The more likely outcome is that they believe that the government should be permitted to carry out such actions
That is literally what is happening. The case was filed in court. The administrations lawyers are trying to defend the government by having it dismissed.
There is no super secret “oh the Biden admin really thinks this was unjust,” thing going on. Especially when part of their argument is that as a law enforcement endeavor the government holds sovereign immunity from lawsuits regarding the scam.
The Biden administration, like the Trump administration who tried to dismiss this suit before them, is in the wrong. Our government victimized these people and must give them restitution, not excuses. Full stop.
I mean, I follow the news through here mostly, so I have no idea what plays in the main stream. And I will say there are lots of reasons why this could be not as bad as we think. However, going radio silent, after Harris specifically called it out as a bad program, does not look good.
I mean a huge portion of what people are so angry about with immigration stuff in general is a lack of transparency. If there is a legit reason for not walking back what happened here they should be fucking saying it. Not quietly telling judges to kill the case.
The main change during Trump was that instead of just throwing up a website that said they were a university and then waiting to see if anyone applied, they started going out and trying to convince visa students to apply.