SBA EIDL Grant Lawsuits against Jovita Carranza – $10,000 Grant – A federal court in Nevada has issued their decision in favor of the SBA; however, there are still two, yet undecided, lawsuits in Florida and Arkansas regarding the alleged failure of the SBA to properly comply with the CARES Act, specifically the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

How will these cases affect your ability to get the full $10,000 grant and EIDL loan approval of up to $2 million? Will the SBA be called to task for their abysmal performance?


💰💰2 Free Stocks valued up to $1,400 👉
📔📔 America Hijacked: How Deep State Actors from LBJ to Obama . . . 👉
👉 Attorney Vitaliy Volpov 👉

Is your EIDL loan approved? Comment below!

As I covered in my video on Monday, July 6th, multiple members of Congress are “less than pleased” with how the SBA, under Administrator Jovita Carranza, has chosen to implement several unilateral rules in stark contrast to the intentions of the CARES Act. To make things even worse, there are many “secret rules” that are applied internally when the SBA is processing EIDL applications without sharing these rules to the public, leaving business owners in the dark.

A few of these unilateral rules the SBA implemented include reducing the “up-to $10,000” advance/grant to a specific, $1,000 per employee up-to $10,000 and effectively forcing many small businesses to accept only a few thousand dollars, instead of the larger $10,000 they were expecting.

Moving on to a specific case: In LIT VENTURES, LLC v. CARRANZA, a suit filed in Nevada alleging in part the SBA failed to provide the $10,000 within 3-days.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey, she stated in her order:

“[the defendant] reaches this conclusion after quoting a few choice phrases from the CARES Act and recounting page upon page of public statements that lawmakers and the SBA have made in the wake of the Act’s passage. But statutory interpretation, as the Supreme Court, always says, “begins with the text and “[w]here the statute’s language is plain, [courts] do not ” consider ‘the legislative history or any other extrinsic material.’” And here, my analysis begins and ends with the relevant statutory text.”

Basically, she is saying a judge should use extreme caution if they are to use the speeches or letters written by politicians when interpreting the law. To the extent that a judge does, they must limit it in scope only to parts of the law that are not clear. For this reason, the judge will limit her decision to what is actually written in the law, not what Congress may or may not have intended.

Or stated another way. It is not the responsibility of the courts to correct a poorly written law. If Congress has a different intention than what was written, they are obligated to correct it, not the courts.

She further states: “[CARES Act] tells an applicant what it may do when applying for an EIDL in response to COVID-19: ask the SBA to provide it an advance within three days of receiving the EIDL application.”

This was the exact analysis I made months ago in my video when I said the “three-day” stipulation means that the applicant may request a grant within three days, not that the SBA will, necessarily, pay it within three days.

I think the overall confusion in this entire EIDL program is Congress is saying one thing and the law says another. Now that Judge Dorsey has weighed in, we have some general idea where other lawsuits will go.

We need to reopen America now; initially, the plan was “15 days to slow the spread,” which as 115 days ago today.

⚠️ ⚠️ ⚖️⚖️
In closing a quick statement: I am not a lawyer, CPA, tax advisor, realtor, financial advisor, etc., etc., I have absolutely no licenses/certifications in anything related to these industries, I am just a dude on the internet. So, in full disclosure: the information I provide here is for “entertainment purposes only” and you should seek counsel from competent and certified individuals if you have questions. eidl loan approved