• 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.
I can't make copies, but I can make notes.

There's nothing new in exhibits - letters were published on White's blog (except the CIS letter), winning notification is redacted, emails with confirmation numbers were published here, everything else is still on DOS website.
 
raevsky said:
Does it mean your license you are using to access the documents does not allow you to copy?
Click to expand...
The restriction isn't technical, but administrative or procedural. The documents aren't sealed, but I've been told I can't make copies if I'm not an attorney on this case. I don't know the details. And that's exactly why you can't access them.
 
Mele: Earlier on Intried to explain some of these things but you made a crass remark about me.

The date of publication of the dictionary Mr. White is irrelevant. Supreme Court still rely on cases like Marbury v. Madison which was decided in 1803.

Most courts mostly use the black law dictionary and/or Random House dictionary. The word random is not defined in the Black law dictionary but court are even gravitating towards using ordinary English dictionary to define a term.

Firstly, the court may use the dictionary because the word "random" is not defined in the statute.

Mr. White and DoS can use any dictionary and explain it as they want.

But if the court finds that the word "random"'is ambiguous and unclear, the next step is statutory interpretation.
Statutory interpretation means the court will determine the original intent of congress and the purpose of the statute. The purpose was to give greencard to those who have less immigrants in the U.S

My opinion on the statutory interpretation is the results were still within the purpose of the statute. The people selected are from different countries with less immigrants as congress intended.
 
Kwame O said:
You can refer to all my post--res ipsa loquitur
Click to expand...


It is precisely because I have seen all your posts I, and I am sure others, have come to the conclusion you are what I said you are. How ironical you say "res ipsa loquitur" .....the thing speaks for itself...... everything about you speaks for yourself.

Kwame O said:
Jay refer to my previous notes and you will notice that I said the defendant has a certain number of days to respond to the summons and complaint
Click to expand...

No kidding Sherlock...anyone would know that.
 
The date of publication of the dictionary Mr. White is irrelevant. Supreme Court still rely on cases like Marbury v. Madison which was decided in 1803.
Click to expand...
That is not the same. English language is constantly changing. The law was signed into force when the word random already had a different meaning, not the same as in 1919.

Most courts mostly use the black law dictionary and/or Random House dictionary. The word random is not defined in the Black law dictionary but court are even gravitating towards using ordinary English dictionary to define a term.
Click to expand...
Any modern dictionary has that meaning I am talking about.

Firstly, the court may use the dictionary because the word "random" is not defined in the statute.
Click to expand...
The word random is defined in 22 cfr 42.33

Mr. White and DoS can use any dictionary and explain it as they want.
Click to expand...
Using the meaning "without definite aim or purpose" is absurd here. Because here is both aim and purpose - selection of candidates. So, selecting candidates randomly definitely has aim and purpose. Using this meaning in the law invalidates the purpose of the law.

But if the court finds that the word "random"'is ambiguous and unclear, the next step is statutory interpretation.
Statutory interpretation means the court will determine the original intent of congress and the purpose of the statute. The purpose was to give greencard to those who have less immigrants in the U.S
Click to expand...
So, using the term random within the meaning "without definite aim or purpose" is meaningless for GC lottery, because the statuse has a purpose - in particular, selecting candidates. I would say any statue of law has one. But for this statue the purpose is well defined.

My opinion on the statutory interpretation is the results were still within the purpose of the statute. The people selected are from different countries with less immigrants as congress intended.
Click to expand...
So, it had a definite purpose, according to you. Then it was not "without a definite aim or purpose". Agreed? It could be "without definite aim or purpose" only in case the statue did not have one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, are you aware of any statue of any law that does not have a definite aim or purpose? Not necessarily a US law, just give me any. I cannot even imagine one.
 
Since you are splitting hair and having your own interpretation, I thought the best answer to you will be this: Read the cases below and you will see ALL the steps a court goes through when the sole issue on a case is statutory interpretation.

1. McNeill v. U.S.
Supreme Court of the United States June 6, 2011 --- S.Ct. ----

2. U.S. v. Broncheau
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. May 26, 2011 --- F.3d ----
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top