CraigToomy
Banned
Omg, at least we got some definiteness. Thanks, chief!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Litigation update this week
- Thread starter jayo2k
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
We were talking not just about a presence of word "random" in the law, but about an annual procedure (DV lottery selection) that has to occur every year according to law, for specific well defined purpose (selection of candidates). And the law is saying, according to this definition of word random, that this procedure does not have any purpose or aim. Nice! This is absurd.How would you interpret the statute in a case where the word at issue was "such."
You example with the word such is totally different.
We were talking not just about a presence of word "random" in the law, but about an annual procedure (DV lottery selection) that has to occur every year according to law, for specific well defined purpose (selection of candidates). And the law is saying, according to this definition of word random, that this procedure does not have any purpose or aim. Nice! This is absurd.
You example with the word such is totally different.
So are you saying that the plaintiffs are arguing that the law has no aim or purpose?
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.
this is assuming that each days get the exact same amount of entries which is not thus giving an advantage to peoples who entered during low entries day... Let say day 1 : 500 entries, day 17 : 75 entries... selecting the exact amount of entries will give a hell of an advantage to thoses from day 17... See how complex it is how Dos define the "randomnes"...
It was at first May 1st... then it became July 15.. Now it is July 12 for for July 15 to happen... at this point, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE... do not believe strongly on july 15 like some here because history has though us the opposite...
This is not a proof the selection was not random. The right criteria would be Mont-Carlo simulation and calculating the frequencies of wins for each entry (that is what KCC was supposed to do at the testing stage). However, I do not see a natural of creating a random selection algorithm that would provide a decent likelyhood of what happened - when 3 largest regions provided the same narrow time interval for random selection.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.
What an interesting story i can see here about laws.
Jayo2k for what you just said now that not everybody from thesame region has equal chances, right about that.
Kwame o i can feel you.I think you have something to offer to the house interms of law case cos you sound more educative in law terms.I guess am right.
Jayo2k for what you just said now that not everybody from thesame region has equal chances, right about that.
Kwame o i can feel you.I think you have something to offer to the house interms of law case cos you sound more educative in law terms.I guess am right.
My example of the case "such" is not different. Every court goes through the same steps when faced with an issue of statutory interpretation. So the same steps the court will go through when the issue is the meaning of "semi-colon" as when the issue is "random" or "such"
Yes. They have to agree with the point - if random means "without a definite aim or purpose", then applying random selection means "applying selection without any aim or purpose". And that definitely means that selection of applicants and issuing them visas and their coming to US and cultural diversity of immigrants is not among the definite purposes of the lottery law.So are you saying that the plaintiffs are arguing that the law has no aim or purpose.
I am talking not about the set of steps, but about the sense of the law. Word "such" in the law does not make the law absurd, unless you find a very non-traditional sense for "such". But word "random" would. Not because of the word itself, but because of the meaning you assign to it. As you said, plaintiffs are trying to prove "this law has no definite aim or purpose". That is very much different from saying "this law is such". The first one is absurd, the second one is not.My example of the case "such" is not different. Every court goes through the same steps when faced with an issue of statutory interpretation. So the same steps the court will go through when the issue is the meaning of "semi-colon" as when the issue is "random" or "such"
Yes. They have to agree with the point - if random means "without a definite aim or purpose", then appElying random selection means "applying selection without any aim or purpose". And that definitely means that selection of applicants and issuing them visas and their coming to US and cultural diversity of immigrants is not among the definite purposes of the lottery law.
To begin with that not how court interpret the laws. No court in it's ruling has given the interpretation you are giving.
By your line of reasoning, how would you interpret "such" in a statute. For your information Black law dictionary meaning of "such" is different from Random House dictionary meaning of "such."
Again, the Congressional intent and the purpose of enacting the statute is not determine what "random" means.
The Congressional Intent was to give greencards to countries with less immigrants in the U.S to diversify the entire population. That's why countries which have more immigrants in the U. S were excluded. Refer to the INA and read the preamble and the legislative history of that Act.
I am talking not about the set of steps, but about the sense of the law. Word "such" in the law does not make the law absurd, unless you find a very non-traditional sense for "such". But word "random" would. Not because of the word itself, but because of the meaning you assign to it. As you said, plaintiffs are trying to prove "this law has no definite aim or purpose". That is very much different from saying "this law is such". The first one is absurd, the second one is not.
Finally you have sank. The plaintiffs are not arguing that the law has no definite aim or purpose. Refer to plaintiffs summons and complaints.
They are ONLY saying that the word "random" is not defined in the statutes. According to case law when a word is not defined in a statute, the court willnuse the dictionary tondetermine the meaning of the word. So plaintiffs are saying that the word "random" is not defined in the statute and the dictionary meaning of "random" is .....
Defendants would argue that the word "random" is not define but they can rely on Chevron deference.
The fact that it is not in summons and complaint does not mean they are not saying that.The plaintiffs are not arguing that the law has no definite aim or purpose. Refer to plaintiffs summons and complaints.
For instance, we all know that 2+2 = 4 and 3+3=6.
Let's assume plaintiffs are saying 2=3 in the summons.
Would it be correct to say plaintiffs are also saying 6=4?
What you are saying is No, because that is not in the summons.
What I am saying is Yes, because if 2=3, and 2+2=4, then we substitute 2 by 3 in 2+2=4 and get 3+3=4, but we know that 3+3=6, so we substitute 3+3 by 6 and get 6=4. So, if they are saying 2=3 then they are definitely saying 6=4
Finally it looks like you do not understand the law has certain sense. You are trying to apply certain procedures (defined in Supreme Court cases) to certain laws without understanding their sense.Finally you have sank.
That all does not matter.By your line of reasoning, how would you interpret "such" in a statute. For your information Black law dictionary meaning of "such" is different from Random House dictionary meaning of "such."
Let's apply your meaning of random as "without definite aim or purpose" to Random House Dictionary. That would become "No definite aim or purpose House Dictionary". Would it make a lot of sense? Sounds absurd to me.Again, the Congressional intent and the purpose of enacting the statute is not determine what "random" means.
what the hell are you talking about?
The fact that it is not in summons and complaint does not mean they are not saying that.
For instance, we all know that 2+2 = 4 and 3+3=6.
Let's assume plaintiffs are saying 2=3 in the summons.
Would it be correct to say plaintiffs are also saying 6=4?
What you are saying is No, because that is not in the summons.
What I am saying is Yes, because if 2=3, and 2+2=4, then we substitute 2 by 3 in 2+2=4 and get 3+3=4, but we know that 3+3=6, so we substitute 3+3 by 6 and get 6=4. So, if they are saying 2=3 then they are definitely saying 6=4
Finally it looks like you do not understand the law has certain sense. You are trying to apply certain procedures (defined in Supreme Court cases) to certain laws without understanding their sense.
The fact that it is not in summons and complaint does not mean they are not saying that.
For instance, we all know that 2+2 = 4 and 3+3=6.
Let's assume plaintiffs are saying 2=3 in the summons.
Would it be correct to say plaintiffs are also saying 6=4?
What you are saying is No, because that is not in the summons.
What I am saying is Yes, because if 2=3, and 2+2=4, then we substitute 2 by 3 in 2+2=4 and get 3+3=4, but we know that 3+3=6, so we substitute 3+3 by 6 and get 6=4. So, if they are saying 2=3 then they are definitely saying 6=4
Finally it looks like you do not understand the law has certain sense. You are trying to apply certain procedures (defined in Supreme Court cases) to certain laws without understanding their sense.
I have read thousands of cases to understand how courts reason. As a matter of fact that is all that we do in law school. Studying cases to understand how the court reason, why they make a decision and how they applied the laws.
I said refer to the summons and complaint because plaintiffs must allege the facts, which law applies to them and the relief.
In the court room it is only what is in the summons and complaint and defendants answer to the complaint that will be addressed.
If they are saying what is not in the complaint then they have to amend the complaint to include what they are saying before whatever they are saying will be considered and also in their briefs/memo.
However, I have not read or heard the plaintiffs lawyer say that the law has no purpose or definite. They are only referring to the dictionary meaning of the word "random"
In law 2+2 is not always equal to 4.
Anyway, I think I am done with ya. The judge will determine. However, I will implore to read the judge's opinion and reasoning. Compare it to any other case and you will know thatcourts reason alike.
That all does not matter.
Let's apply your meaning of random as "without definite aim or purpose" to Random House Dictionary. That would become "No definite aim or purpose House Dictionary". Would it make a lot of sense? Sounds absurd to me.
To begin with, "definite purpose or aim" is not my definition or meaning. You keep on referring to that meaning but that is what the plaintiffs' lawyer said on radio. Refer to the plaintiffs' memo and brief to the court. The name of the dictionary, the meaning of the word "random" must be there. You cant just use a radio talk( the lawyer said on radio that random means "without definite aim or purpose" as the legal basis for all your analysis. What he said on radio might be different from what is actually in his brief or memo to the court. Moreover, if the court finds that the random is AMBIGUOUS, the plaintiffs meaning or random and the defendant's meaning of "random" DOES NOT MATTER anymore. It now becomes incumbent on the judge to interpret the statute. It is called statutory or judicial interpretation.
Again, if you truly want to understand the purpose of the statute and congressional intent in enacting the statute, refer to the preamble of the statute and the legislative history.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.