THIS FROM NY 1:
"She’s the first baby born, so everything in the future should go smoothly for her," said Yan Zhu Liu through a translator.
But since Liu’s daughter Yuki Lin was born at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Day in Lower Manhattan things haven’t exactly been smooth sailing; a roller coaster is more like it. Yuki Lin was declared the first baby of the year and the winner of a Babies R’ Us sweepstakes, a $25,000 savings bond intended to help pay for a college education.
But when the company got wind that the baby’s mom may be an illegal immigrant, the prize went to a Georgia newborn instead.
"This is particularly troublesome given the history of Asian-Americans in the United States, where we have been seen as invisible or treated as perpetual foreigners or second class citizens," said Liz OuYank of the Organization of Chinese Americans. "And here, clearly, she was born in the United States, is a U.S. citizen and the award should be based on simply that."
It turns out where the baby is born isn’t the only factor in determining who wins the prize. According to the official rules, the mother must be a legal U.S. resident. That news didn’t sit well with people NY1 spoke with.
"I don’t think that’s right, because it’s just about whether the kid was the first born in the United States," said one New Yorker.
Several Chinese organizations put a call out for Babies ‘R’ Us to return the award to the 6 and a half pound girl, and everyone NY1 spoke with seemed to agree.
In the end, it looks Babies R Us heard the community’s call.
On Saturday, the company released a statement saying "We deeply regret that this sweepstakes became a point of controversy. As a result, we have decided to award all three babies in the grand prize pool a $25,000 savings bond."
That means Yuki Lin, the Georgia baby and one born in Bay Shore, New York all win.
"I think it’s a great idea that they are giving the bond to the baby’s mother even though she isn’t a U.S. resident," said a New Yorker.
When NY1 visited the baby and her parents Monday, through a translator Yuki Lin’s father said, "the baby will bring us much more luck this year."
It looks like that luck is already in effect.
– Cindi Avila
ALBERT WANG’S E-MAIL TO TOYS-R-US’ LEGAL DEPARTMENT ON JANUARY 4, 2007
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
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)
> >
With respect to my legal analysis on whether Yuki Lin is entitled to the $25,000 U.S. Savings Bond from Toys-R-Us, I am firmly convinced that my legal position (as set forth in my e-mails to Toys-R-Us’ Legal Department during the week of January 1, 2007) is correct and unassailable. Before I decided to start this uphill battle as a valiant seeker of Truth, Liberty and Justice, I did consult with various friends and family members who are reputable and competent lawyers.
The most important legal issue is:
Whether Toys-R-Us can discriminate against a First Baby of the Year (e.g., Yuki Lin, who is born in New York City, State of New York and undeniably a United States citizen), by refusing to award the $25,000 U.S. Savings Bond promised to be awarded by Toys-R-Us in accordance with the terms of its own Sweepstake Official Rules, based on the baby’s parents’ marital status, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, education, criminal history, legal status or any other factors unrelated to the baby’s rights to U.S. citizenship under our Constitution, as amended by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I am firmly convinced that my legal analysis is accurate, and my legal position tenable. If this legal issue were argued in a U.S. federal court or New York State court, I strongly believe that Yuki would be able to prevail on the merits.
. . . . . . . . a romantic realist,
aspiring to be a valiant seeker of Truth, Liberty and Justice.
You are nuts. This is an illegal alien, meaning they should not have been here to give birth to begin with. This was a gutless decision on the part of Babies / Toys R Us, trying to be politically correct. Shame on the company, shame on the community and shame on this country if this illegal immigration issue is not resolved. Will this mother use some of this money to offset the hospital costs I am sure the state of NY is covering in the name of PC?