Thread: UPDATE: Toys'r'us CAVES IN TO THE ILLEGALS

Your law student friends need to learn the difference between civil law and criminal law.

Your just wrong RR. Sorry to have to break that to ya.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Your law student friends need to learn the difference between civil law and criminal law.

Your just wrong RR. Sorry to have to break that to ya.

Dixie

Of course it's wrong. The baby did not enter the contest.

From: Albert Wang
To: Tennenberg, Joel
Cc: David J Schwartz Esq
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Toys-R-Us First Baby of the Year

Joel,

I did not receive your return phone call today, even thought I left my cell phone number (917-[REDACTED]) again with your secretary. Neither have I received your response to my 3:45 p.m. e-mail. Toys-R-Us has not provided any legitimate explanation as to why the Chinese American baby girl GRAND PRIZE WINNER (as defined in your 1st Baby of the Year Sweepstakes Official Rules) was deprived of her $25,000 GRAND PRIZE, and was given a token gift BASKET, valued at approximately $100, a fraction of 1% of the Grand Prize. I find such nonresponse disturbing, and unbecoming of a good corporate citizen. Fortune 500 companies such as Toys-R-Us are corporate citizens, and should be wary of its social responsibility in setting good precedents for other small and mid-size corporate citizens.

According to your Official Rule #5, the "GRAND PRIZE WINNER" is defined as "the very first baby of 2007 born from among registered hospitals and/or registered women and/or OB/GYN's at or after 12:00 a.m. (local time in registrant time zone), on January 1, 2007."

The Chinese American baby girl born in New York City certainly satisfies the definition of "GRAND PRIZE WINNER", but was declared a "loser" by Toys-R-Us because of her ancestry---because her parents allegedly are not U.S. citizens. If this is not discrimination, please do provide me with your definition of what constitute definition.

Support for the conclusion that the Chinese American baby girl should have been the Grand Prize Winner is found in your Official Rule #6. The $25,000 US Savings Bond is "for the First Baby of the Year" and is "awarded in the name of the baby". Grand Prize Savings Bond will be awarded "in the baby's name only". If winning mother is a minor, price will be awarded "in baby's name" to mother's parent/legal guardian. The phrase "awarded in the baby's name" appears throughout your Official Rules, but you changed your Official Rules on baby girl who is the actual Grand Prize Winner who happens to be a Chinese American born to Chinese immigrant parents.

(Please double check my interpretation of your Official Rules with your outside legal counsel, and provide me with a copy of the legal opinion you receive from your outside legal counsel.)

When you make a mistake, the right thing to do is to apologize. To err is human; to ask for forgiveness, divine. Toys-R-Us should have awarded the First Baby of 2007 grand prize to the Chinese American girl born in New York City on January 1, 2007. Toys-R-Us should have given her the $25,000 U.S. Savings Bond (awarded in the name of the Chinese American baby girl)--the US Government Series EE bond which matures when she turns 17 years-old, so that she can use it for her education and pursue her American Dream. Instead, Toys-R-Us deprived her of her promised grand prize, notwithstanding the fact that she was born here in New York City, and therefore an American citizen. Toys-R-Us has not proactively taken the necessary steps to remedy this wrong. While this Chinese American baby girl, born to Chinese immigrant parents, are not likely to have the financial wherewithal to retain a lawyer like myself to fight for her legal rights against a billion dollar company such as Toys-R-Us, you should not assume that Toys-R-Us can show no remorse whatsoever for its wrongdoing without consequence. I hope that someone will step up to the plate and help this Chinese American to restore her rights as a legally born U.S. citizen, for the benefit of all Asian Americans in general, and Chinese Americans in particular.

If you have any interest in talking to me face-to-face, and take a non-litigation approach to resolve this matter amicably, and find a "win-win" solution that preserves the dignity of this Chinese American baby girl, the other Chinese Americans, and the other Asian Americans, please do not hesitate to contact me. My cell phone number is (917) [REDACTED]. My personal e-mail address is albertwang221@hotmail.com.

Sincerely,

Albert

cc: Gerald L. Storch, Chairman and CEO of Toys-R-Us (by First Class Mail)


----- Original Message -----
From: Albert Wang
To: tennenbj@toysrus.com
Cc: albertwang221@hotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Toys-R-Us First Baby of the Year

Joel,

Thank you. I note that the US Savings Bond for the very First Baby of the Year is "awarded in the name of the baby", and not in the name of the baby's mother, and that the bonds are US Government Series EE and mature 17 years (i.e., intended for the benefit of the U.S. born baby to be used for the baby's college education. Therefore, I believe that it would not be unconstitutional or illegal for the Chinese American first born baby to be the beneficiary of the US Savings Bond. Even if the Chinese American first born baby's parents cannot legally be the custodian or trustee of such baby's asset, a substitute trustee or guardian ad litem can be easily appointed. I have acted as trustee for my client's trust assets, and would be happy to volunteer to be the trustee for the purpose of holding Toys-R-Us' $25,000 bond for the benefit of this Chinese American first born baby.

The news article in World Journal is in Chinese only. No English version is available. There are various reputable translation agencies available in Tri-State area. A certified translation of this article should not take more than just a few hours. (You might want to use TransPerfect.) If Toys-R-Us is unable or unwilling to pay for the cost of such translation, I will be happy to talk to my firm and ask my firm whether I can handle this on a pro bono basis, for your benefit.

Sincerely,

Albert
. . . . . . . . a romantic realist,
aspiring to be a valiant seeker of Truth, Liberty and Justice.


----- Original Message -----

From: Tennenberg, Joel <mailto:tennenbj@toysrus.com>
To: 'albertwang221@hotmail.com'
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:19 PM
Subject: Babies "R" Us/1st Baby of the Year

Albert,

As requested, the official sweepstakes rules are attached below.

Do you know whether an English version of the World Journal article is
available? If so, I would appreciate it if you could send that to me.

Thanks.
Joel

Joel S. Tennenberg
Litigation & Regulatory Counsel
Toys "R" Us, Inc.
One Geoffrey Way
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
(973) 617-5741 (tel)
(973) 617-4043 (fax)


> <<1st Baby of the Year Sweepstakes.pdf>>

From: Albert Wang
To: Tennenberg, Joel
Cc: David J Schwartz Esq
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Toys-R-Us First Baby of the Year

Joel,

I did not receive your return phone call today, even thought I left my cell phone number (917-[REDACTED]) again with your secretary. Neither have I received your response to my 3:45 p.m. e-mail. Toys-R-Us has not provided any legitimate explanation as to why the Chinese American baby girl GRAND PRIZE WINNER (as defined in your 1st Baby of the Year Sweepstakes Official Rules) was deprived of her $25,000 GRAND PRIZE, and was given a token gift BASKET, valued at approximately $100, a fraction of 1% of the Grand Prize. I find such nonresponse disturbing, and unbecoming of a good corporate citizen. Fortune 500 companies such as Toys-R-Us are corporate citizens, and should be wary of its social responsibility in setting good precedents for other small and mid-size corporate citizens.

According to your Official Rule #5, the "GRAND PRIZE WINNER" is defined as "the very first baby of 2007 born from among registered hospitals and/or registered women and/or OB/GYN's at or after 12:00 a.m. (local time in registrant time zone), on January 1, 2007."

The Chinese American baby girl born in New York City certainly satisfies the definition of "GRAND PRIZE WINNER", but was declared a "loser" by Toys-R-Us because of her ancestry---because her parents allegedly are not U.S. citizens. If this is not discrimination, please do provide me with your definition of what constitute definition.

Support for the conclusion that the Chinese American baby girl should have been the Grand Prize Winner is found in your Official Rule #6. The $25,000 US Savings Bond is "for the First Baby of the Year" and is "awarded in the name of the baby". Grand Prize Savings Bond will be awarded "in the baby's name only". If winning mother is a minor, price will be awarded "in baby's name" to mother's parent/legal guardian. The phrase "awarded in the baby's name" appears throughout your Official Rules, but you changed your Official Rules on baby girl who is the actual Grand Prize Winner who happens to be a Chinese American born to Chinese immigrant parents.

(Please double check my interpretation of your Official Rules with your outside legal counsel, and provide me with a copy of the legal opinion you receive from your outside legal counsel.)

When you make a mistake, the right thing to do is to apologize. To err is human; to ask for forgiveness, divine. Toys-R-Us should have awarded the First Baby of 2007 grand prize to the Chinese American girl born in New York City on January 1, 2007. Toys-R-Us should have given her the $25,000 U.S. Savings Bond (awarded in the name of the Chinese American baby girl)--the US Government Series EE bond which matures when she turns 17 years-old, so that she can use it for her education and pursue her American Dream. Instead, Toys-R-Us deprived her of her promised grand prize, notwithstanding the fact that she was born here in New York City, and therefore an American citizen. Toys-R-Us has not proactively taken the necessary steps to remedy this wrong. While this Chinese American baby girl, born to Chinese immigrant parents, are not likely to have the financial wherewithal to retain a lawyer like myself to fight for her legal rights against a billion dollar company such as Toys-R-Us, you should not assume that Toys-R-Us can show no remorse whatsoever for its wrongdoing without consequence. I hope that someone will step up to the plate and help this Chinese American to restore her rights as a legally born U.S. citizen, for the benefit of all Asian Americans in general, and Chinese Americans in particular.

If you have any interest in talking to me face-to-face, and take a non-litigation approach to resolve this matter amicably, and find a "win-win" solution that preserves the dignity of this Chinese American baby girl, the other Chinese Americans, and the other Asian Americans, please do not hesitate to contact me. My cell phone number is (917) [REDACTED]. My personal e-mail address is albertwang221@hotmail.com.

Sincerely,

Albert

cc: Gerald L. Storch, Chairman and CEO of Toys-R-Us (by First Class Mail)


----- Original Message -----
From: Albert Wang
To: tennenbj@toysrus.com
Cc: albertwang221@hotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Toys-R-Us First Baby of the Year

Joel,

Thank you. I note that the US Savings Bond for the very First Baby of the Year is "awarded in the name of the baby", and not in the name of the baby's mother, and that the bonds are US Government Series EE and mature 17 years (i.e., intended for the benefit of the U.S. born baby to be used for the baby's college education. Therefore, I believe that it would not be unconstitutional or illegal for the Chinese American first born baby to be the beneficiary of the US Savings Bond. Even if the Chinese American first born baby's parents cannot legally be the custodian or trustee of such baby's asset, a substitute trustee or guardian ad litem can be easily appointed. I have acted as trustee for my client's trust assets, and would be happy to volunteer to be the trustee for the purpose of holding Toys-R-Us' $25,000 bond for the benefit of this Chinese American first born baby.

The news article in World Journal is in Chinese only. No English version is available. There are various reputable translation agencies available in Tri-State area. A certified translation of this article should not take more than just a few hours. (You might want to use TransPerfect.) If Toys-R-Us is unable or unwilling to pay for the cost of such translation, I will be happy to talk to my firm and ask my firm whether I can handle this on a pro bono basis, for your benefit.

Sincerely,

Albert
. . . . . . . . a romantic realist,
aspiring to be a valiant seeker of Truth, Liberty and Justice.


----- Original Message -----

From: Tennenberg, Joel <mailto:tennenbj@toysrus.com>
To: 'albertwang221@hotmail.com'
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:19 PM
Subject: Babies "R" Us/1st Baby of the Year

Albert,

As requested, the official sweepstakes rules are attached below.

Do you know whether an English version of the World Journal article is
available? If so, I would appreciate it if you could send that to me.

Thanks.
Joel

Joel S. Tennenberg
Litigation & Regulatory Counsel
Toys "R" Us, Inc.
One Geoffrey Way
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
(973) 617-5741 (tel)
(973) 617-4043 (fax)


> <<1st Baby of the Year Sweepstakes.pdf>>

"Chinese immigrants???"""

ILLEGAL ALIENS PERIOD!

I am SOOOOOOOOOO sick of this!!!


vix

''The Chinese American baby girl born in New York City certainly satisfies the definition of "GRAND PRIZE WINNER", but was declared a "loser" by Toys-R-Us because of her ancestry---because her parents allegedly are not U.S. citizens. If this is not discrimination, please do provide me with your definition of what constitute definition."

WHAT?

The rules state that entrants must be legal citizens of the United States. The parents of the newborn are lawbreaking trespassers. Their baby deserves nothing.

Cindy , what I have noticed, especially recently, is the law does not appear to mean much anymore, not to the law makers nor the law breakers. It is a really SAD situation.

I think the family is just full of Grand Prize Winners. The baby gets the $25000 prize, while the parents get government benefits thanks to the baby. I'm sure they didn't even pay for the delivery of the winner, either. I guess that would make us the Grand Prize Losers because we paid the bill. And as for Toys R Us, they're just plain losers for caving.

Cindy , what I have noticed, especially recently, is the law does not appear to mean much anymore, not to the law makers nor the law breakers. It is a really SAD situation.

Boy April, do you have THAT RIGHT! The laws we have mean nothing at all, and when I hear these shister lawyers running around saying "poor undocumented worker this and that" I want to scream, and sometimes I do!!!!

Soon our country will no longer be....

and that hurts most of all

vix

Vix wrote:

I want to scream, and sometimes I do!!!!

Me TOO