• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

Litigation update this week

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raevsky Yeah the bill never passed into law due to mathematics professor who happens to be among the legislature.But why the unsurd, definition of random as similar to you.I mean how similar?
 
Correction of absurd and not unsurd.Raevsky what do you understand by the word absurd definition of a random?because its looks similar?
 
jayo2k said:
wow, better than the best thriller.... we had no idea where we were going & now have no idea how it is gonna end but we know it will end
Click to expand...

Well, it's a court, they can't just throw this injunction away, but they have to look in it, and later throw it away, because they have to follow US laws. :)
 
I think it is pretty clear to OIG that the bug in the program made the process non-random. That is why it is clear they do not share Mr. White's view on the meaning of the word "random". At the same time they want to concentrate very thoroughly on figuring out the way how the bug sneaked into the production version, why it was not tested and debugged well, and how to prevent this type of situation in the future.
It looks like they really want to explain very thoroughly to the general audience what the bug was with all those things described above.
 
the bug was another point of the issue... & still was random, if not random, that would mean that EVERY SINGLE persons who applied during the first days was selected but no, that mean it was still random & also 10% came from other days... so : not everyone who applied during the first 2 days were selecteed, that alone means it was random... Not how DOS wanted to be but still was random, anyone telling the opposite is either not objectiv or a non selectee who whish july 15.
now, I do not get why nobody mention the other statement of Mr White... He keep saying that the DOS made a writen commitment... WRITEN COMMITMENT...
... but at the end of the day, all is speculation, only one has the final answer & it is the judge on july 12
raevsky said:
I think it is pretty clear to OIG that the bug in the program made the process non-random. That is why it is clear they do not share Mr. White's view on the meaning of the word "random". At the same time they want to concentrate very thoroughly on figuring out the way how the bug sneaked into the production version, why it was not tested and debugged well, and how to prevent this type of situation in the future.
It looks like they really want to explain very thoroughly to the general audience what the bug was with all those things described above.
Click to expand...
 
DOS written policy refers to the meaning of "random" common for random sampling. That meaning is very much different from the meaning "without definite aim or purpose". This meaning ("without definite aim or purpose") would be absurd if included into any statue of law, because laws have both definite aim and purpose, on the one hand. On the other hand, change of the meaning from DOS written policy to "without definite aim or purpose" would constitute a sudden policy change while the term is not clearly defined in the law. Each of those two reasons points that the meaning the Congress used in the law was different from "without definite aim or purpose"
 
Bentlebee: To begin with, it is wrong to say that "those with common sense." People least expected Thurgood Marshall to win in Brown v. Board of Education, but he eventually won that case. Today this This case offers precendential value to every case adjudicated in US.

Similarly, people least expected Johnnie Cochran to win in People v. O. J Simpson, but he eventually won.

It is important know that even the most genius lawyers still lose cases: Johnnie Cochran lost in Leonard Deadwyler case.

It is time you stop attacking the integrity of the lawyer and caricaturing him in your comments.

Your are entitled to your opinion but don't let it sound as if who ever does do not agree with you has no common sense.

I think you can still make your comments void of insults.

People are here to learn and to help eachother with immigration process. Unless people have their own intentions beneath this goal of helping others.
 
jayo2k said:
the bug was another point of the issue... & still was random, if not random, that would mean that EVERY SINGLE persons who applied during the first days was selected but no, that mean it was still random & also 10% came from other days... so : not everyone who applied during the first 2 days were selecteed, that alone means it was random... Not how DOS wanted to be but still was random, anyone telling the opposite is either not objectiv or a non selectee who whish july 15.
now, I do not get why nobody mention the other statement of Mr White... He keep saying that the DOS made a writen commitment... WRITEN COMMITMENT...
... but at the end of the day, all is speculation, only one has the final answer & it is the judge on july 12
Click to expand...

It's still be random only in a way like a crush/hack, that's it. Just try to understand it. I guess all this lawsuit process would help to prevent such kind of errors happening in future, but everybody do mistakes. :)
 
raevsky said:
DOS written policy refers to the meaning of "random" common for random sampling. That meaning is very much different from the meaning "without definite aim or purpose". This meaning ("without definite aim or purpose") would be absurd if included into any statue of law, because laws have both definite aim and purpose, on the one hand. On the other hand, change of the meaning from DOS written policy to "without definite aim or purpose" would constitute a sudden policy change while the term is not clearly defined in the law. Each of those two reasons points that the meaning the Congress used in the law was different from "without definite aim or purpose"
Click to expand...

I feel like, I certainly have to keep you on your toes on how you misinterpret the laws-- Every law/statute has a purpose but that is not what the plaintiffs are saying.

They are only refering to the dictionary meaning of "random" itself. How would you interpret the statute in a case where the word at issue was "such." Are you going to put the same spin as you have?: "because laws have both definte aim and purpose" because "laws have "such". Again dont be putting spins on the rules and interpreting it as you understand. There have been several cases where the meaning of a word in a statute was not define and has several meanings even when the dictionary was used to find the meaning of that word--this where statutory interpretation comes in.

So regardless of the meaning the plaintiffs are using or Dos will use, if the court finds that the word "random" is ambiguous and subject to several meanings the court will engage in judicial interpretation considering the intent and purpose of the statute-- At this point only the meaning that the court will give to "random" will hold and not what the defendants or plaintiffs will say. That is why it is called statutory/judicial interpretation

The bottom line is statutes are not interpretated the way you are interpretating it. I have given you cases just for you to read so you will learn or know how the court reason and interpret statutes when the word in a term is an issue.
The Congressional intent and the purpose of the staute is to give greencard to countries with less immigrants in the U.S. However, Congress did not define the word "random".

DoS might rely on "Chevron deference." This case has two to four issues but you seem to be tackling only one of them. Again, there are other issues-- you cant ignore "detrimental reliance," "standing" etc


For your information the case where "such" was an issue is a real case and not imaginary case. There are even cases where "semi-colon" was an issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
honestly man, you makes me want to learn the law because you learn so much. I remember my law courses in belgium (was like for 4 months but still), i remember loving it because was learning so much
by the way, what is the Chevron defence?
Kwame O said:
I feel like I have certainly have to keep you on your toes on how you misinterpret the laws-- Every law/statute has a purpose but that is not what the plaintiffs are saying.

They are only refering to the dictionary meaning of "random" itself. There have been several cases where the meaning of a word in a statute was not define and has several meansings even when the dictionary was used to find the meaning of that word--this where statutory interpretation comes in.

So regardless of the meaning the plaintiffs are using or Dos will use, if the court finds that the word "random" is ambiguous and subject to several meanings the court will engage in judicial interpretation considering the intent and purpose of the statute-- At this point only the meaning that the court will give to "random" will hold and not what the defendants or plaintiffs will say. That is why it is called statutory/judicial interpretation
The bottom line statutes are not interpreting by inserting the dictionary meaning

The Congressional intent and the purpose of the staute is to give greencard to countries with less immigrants in the U.S.

DoS might rely on "Chevron deference," but that alone is not enough for them to win the case. Again, there are other issues that could still get plaintiffs reinstated-- you cant ignore "detrimental reliance"
Click to expand...
 
Kwame O said:
I feel like, I certainly have to keep you on your toes on how you misinterpret the laws-- Every law/statute has a purpose but that is not what the plaintiffs are saying.

They are only refering to the dictionary meaning of "random" itself. How would you interpret the statute in a case where the word at issue was "such." Are you going to put the same spin as you have?: "because laws have both definte aim and purpose" because "laws have "such". Again dont be putting spins on the rules and interpreting it as you understand. There have been several cases where the meaning of a word in a statute was not define and has several meansings even when the dictionary was used to find the meaning of that word--this where statutory interpretation comes in.

So regardless of the meaning the plaintiffs are using or Dos will use, if the court finds that the word "random" is ambiguous and subject to several meanings the court will engage in judicial interpretation considering the intent and purpose of the statute-- At this point only the meaning that the court will give to "random" will hold and not what the defendants or plaintiffs will say. That is why it is called statutory/judicial interpretation

The bottom line is statutes are not interpretated the way you are interpretating it. I have given you cases just for you to read so you will learn or know how the court reason and interpret statutes when the word in a term is an issue.
The Congressional intent and the purpose of the staute is to give greencard to countries with less immigrants in the U.S. However, Congress did not define the word "random".

DoS might rely on "Chevron deference." This case has two to four issues but you seem to be tackling only one of them. Again, there are other issues-- you cant ignore "detrimental reliance," "standing" etc


For your information the case where "such" was an issue is a real case and not imaginary case. There are even cases where "semi-colon(;)" was an issue.
Click to expand...

Everything what you have said is very understandable, I just don't understand - if you are so good at Laws, then how do you keep believe in winning chance of this case?
The word "random" is not the only one word which is appearing there, there are also words like "equal" "chance". You just focusing on one single world ;)
 
I am not focusing on one word. Frankly, I dont even know which dictionary term both plaintiffs and defendants are using. Thats why I said that, when a word has several meanings, every party will try to choose the meaning that suits him/her case. But it is the judge that will finally interpret the true meaning of the word considering the legislative intent and the purpose of the statute in question--it is called judicial interpretation.

You dont have to be good or bad at law to believe in winning a case or not. Even the most genuis lawyers have lost cases (refer to Johnnie Cochran). I do not "guarantee" win or lose for either the plaintiffs or the defendants. It can go either way. So in all my posts, I have never said anywhere that plaintiffs will win or defendants will win or vice versa. I have only tried to engage Reavsky in a meaningful discussion--and I really appreciate his posts void of insults.
 
Corewin said:
"equal" "chance".
Click to expand...

If this is the only thing DOS would have had for their defence (which is not), then they would certanly lose.. Why?
Because not everybody has the same chance even whithin the same region... A nigerian born has the lower chance in Africa due to the selectee cap... Same for Bangladesh in Asia
 
Yes, Kwame O, but he doesn't pretend to act like a lawer here.
And yes jayo2k it is not the only thing DOS would have for their defence ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello everyone,
i'v delibrately avoided making any comments as regards the invalidation of the DV 2012 results,but it is imperative at this point to do so.before we can fully understand the onions of this issue,we must first consider the ''latter'' and the ''spirit'' of randomness as used by KCC.Granted they ought to have verified and cross-verified those results before making it public,yet in my opinion,they did the right thing by invalidating the released results,simply because it failed to satisfy the interpretations of the law creating the DV lottery.
What KCC usually do is to select winners from all qualified entries made throughout all the days of application period[30days],among the 6 regions[Randomly].But in this case,90% of winners were selected only from the first 2 days[5-6th],while the remaining 28days were drawn from 10%.that mean...pls this is an hypothetic assumption,say 500 winners ought to have be selected per day......the computer instead selected 45,000 each in the 1st 2days[90,000], thereby leaving 0nly 10,000 to be distributed among the 28days....these can not be said to have given an equal chance to every qualified entrant,because entrys made from 7th had a low chance of being selected....sentiments aside,those voided results did not satisfy the laws governing the selection of winners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top