Litigation update this week
- Thread starter jayo2k
- Start date
- Status
I am looking at the article on the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation
What I see here exactly follows my interpretation.
1. Ambiguity. In 1919 this would not look ambiguous. because the dictionary had only 1 meaning. Now it has several meanings, so the meaning from 1919 could not be automatically applied.
2.
3.
I think, pretty clear. The logic is the same, I am just using now the right terms (standard terms used for stationary interpretation)
What I see here exactly follows my interpretation.
1. Ambiguity. In 1919 this would not look ambiguous. because the dictionary had only 1 meaning. Now it has several meanings, so the meaning from 1919 could not be automatically applied.
2.
This is a major policy change. The policy is defined in 22 cfr 42.33. It involves standard software for random numbers generation. Applying non-standard software (a buggy one) would be a major policy change.
3.
This corresponds to the idea that a statue of law could not have no definite aim or purpose - this is absolutely absurd.
I think, pretty clear. The logic is the same, I am just using now the right terms (standard terms used for stationary interpretation)
Last edited by a moderator:
It is interesting that I while I am cite caselaw to show what a court does when face with an explanation of a term in a statue, you are citing wikipedia. Wikipedia has no legal authority. Caselaw is primary authority and binding on courts.
I am not sure you read the cases I provided for you. Generally, these are the steps a court goes through when the issue is about a word in the statute:
1. Look at the plain language of statute
2. Use dictionary if the word is not defined in the statute
3. If the word is clear, it is enforced as it's written, but if it is unclear, ambiguous and subject to different interpretation then a statutory/judicial interpretation is required to determine the congressional intent in enacting such law/statute.
4. To determine the intent of Congress, the purpose of the statute is considered.
Pretty much the article in wiki says the same. I am sure wiki is not a legal reference. But a good source.
Random is not defined in the law, but is defined in 22 cfr 42.33 (interpretation of the law by DOS, current written policy)
Modern dictionaries give several meanings. An ancient dictionary gives only one.
Good. It is not clear - there are several meanings in the dictionary.
This is where clear statement rule and avoiding absurdity rule show that the meaning "without definite aim or purpose" is not the one Congress intended. Pretty clear.
CraigToomy
Banned
Clarification: 6) is reply from DOS to Christophe Ramin stating that "All submitted documents will be destroyed".
7) is "cease and desist" letter from White to KCC.
CraigToomy
Banned
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
Pursuant to FRCP 65, Plaintiff hereby move for a preliminary injuction directing the Defendants to 1) preserve the Plaintiff's current DV-2012 regional lottery rank numbers; 2) process the Plaintiff's applications for immigrant visas and adjustment of status to the extent applicable, same manner, sequence and according to the same approximate time frames as the successful petitioners of the DV-2011 lottery; and 3) preserve all evidence pertaining to Plaintiff's DV lottery petitions and applications. In the event that a second DV-2012 lottery will be permitted to proceed on or about July 15, 2011 as Defendants plan, Plaintiff apply to this court for a preliminary injunction 1) enjoining Defendants from issuing DV regional lottery rank numbers which duplicate those numbers of Plaintiffs; 2) restraining Defendants from drawing more than 78000 selectees; and 3) restraining the Department of State from issuing and immigrant visa numbers to selectees of the second lottery until a) the rights of the selectees of the first DV-2012 lottery have been established and b) DOS has presented the Court with a plan to process the selectees of the first lottery in a way that will not disadvantage them in relation to the selectees of the second lottery.
Plaintiff's application is based on their Complaint, the attached Memorandum of Support of Preliminary Injunction and the declarations and exhibits attached to the Memorandum. These filings detail the immediate, permanent and irreparable harm to be suffered by Plaintiffs in the event injunctive relief is not granted.
Given the urgency of the matters addresses herein, Plaintiffs, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 65.1(d), moce the Court to schedule a hearing for oral argument to be conducted on July 12 or 13, 2011.
June 28, 2011. /s/ White.
Pursuant to FRCP 65, Plaintiff hereby move for a preliminary injuction directing the Defendants to 1) preserve the Plaintiff's current DV-2012 regional lottery rank numbers; 2) process the Plaintiff's applications for immigrant visas and adjustment of status to the extent applicable, same manner, sequence and according to the same approximate time frames as the successful petitioners of the DV-2011 lottery; and 3) preserve all evidence pertaining to Plaintiff's DV lottery petitions and applications. In the event that a second DV-2012 lottery will be permitted to proceed on or about July 15, 2011 as Defendants plan, Plaintiff apply to this court for a preliminary injunction 1) enjoining Defendants from issuing DV regional lottery rank numbers which duplicate those numbers of Plaintiffs; 2) restraining Defendants from drawing more than 78000 selectees; and 3) restraining the Department of State from issuing and immigrant visa numbers to selectees of the second lottery until a) the rights of the selectees of the first DV-2012 lottery have been established and b) DOS has presented the Court with a plan to process the selectees of the first lottery in a way that will not disadvantage them in relation to the selectees of the second lottery.
Plaintiff's application is based on their Complaint, the attached Memorandum of Support of Preliminary Injunction and the declarations and exhibits attached to the Memorandum. These filings detail the immediate, permanent and irreparable harm to be suffered by Plaintiffs in the event injunctive relief is not granted.
Given the urgency of the matters addresses herein, Plaintiffs, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 65.1(d), moce the Court to schedule a hearing for oral argument to be conducted on July 12 or 13, 2011.
June 28, 2011. /s/ White.
CraigToomy
Banned
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[skip]
Exhibits:
1) Declaration of Kenneth White
2) (a and b) WSJ article "Loosing ticket in the American lottery"
3) Declaration of Ilya Smirnov, selection letter, copy of visa, I-94
4) Declaration of Iva Zafirova, copy of visa, I-94, petition approval
5) Declaration of Stuart McBrien, selection letter
6) Declaration of Piendomne Kuate, selection letter
7) Declaration of Alejandro Alvarez Alvarez, selection letter
8) Declaration of Omayma Izzzeldin Kamil Amin, selection letter, copy of visa, I-94 and I-20 form
9) Declaration of Sabina Timilsina, selection letter and copy of visa
10) Declaration of Jovanka Nikolic, selection letter, copy of visa and I-94
11) Declaration of Deborah Lempogo, selection letter
12) Declaration of Yosif Mourad Ibrahim, selection letter
13) Declaration of Amain Murshed Al Maamaari, selection letter
14) Declaration of Jamal Glim, selection letter
15) Declaration of Neda Ghacmmaghami Farahaini, selection letter
16) (a and b) Selection letters of other Plaintiffs
17) Other documents showing legal status of Plaintiffs in the Unites States
18) Representative adjustment of status and courier expenses incurred by Plaintiffs
19) DOS Statistics: Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and AOS in the Diversity Immigrant Category FY 2001-2010.
There's one exhibit missing, I could figure out which. Perhaps one of declarations.
[skip]
Exhibits:
1) Declaration of Kenneth White
2) (a and b) WSJ article "Loosing ticket in the American lottery"
3) Declaration of Ilya Smirnov, selection letter, copy of visa, I-94
4) Declaration of Iva Zafirova, copy of visa, I-94, petition approval
5) Declaration of Stuart McBrien, selection letter
6) Declaration of Piendomne Kuate, selection letter
7) Declaration of Alejandro Alvarez Alvarez, selection letter
8) Declaration of Omayma Izzzeldin Kamil Amin, selection letter, copy of visa, I-94 and I-20 form
9) Declaration of Sabina Timilsina, selection letter and copy of visa
10) Declaration of Jovanka Nikolic, selection letter, copy of visa and I-94
11) Declaration of Deborah Lempogo, selection letter
12) Declaration of Yosif Mourad Ibrahim, selection letter
13) Declaration of Amain Murshed Al Maamaari, selection letter
14) Declaration of Jamal Glim, selection letter
15) Declaration of Neda Ghacmmaghami Farahaini, selection letter
16) (a and b) Selection letters of other Plaintiffs
17) Other documents showing legal status of Plaintiffs in the Unites States
18) Representative adjustment of status and courier expenses incurred by Plaintiffs
19) DOS Statistics: Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and AOS in the Diversity Immigrant Category FY 2001-2010.
There's one exhibit missing, I could figure out which. Perhaps one of declarations.
Guys, it's not a court, calm down - the law suit action result wouldn't depend on you. And sure they destroyed all the documents because these documents provide that you have immigration expectancies, so if you will change your mind for this lottery you could get non-immigration visas.
CraigToomy
Banned
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[...]
The DOS decision is not entitled to Chevron defence.
[...]
The doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability does not apply.
[...]
Courts have been clogged with numerous lawsuits from disappointed would-be diversity immigrants complaining that their applications were not processed quickly enough to be completed by the end of FY:
Masaru v Napolitano
Ahmed v DHS
Markowski v Ashcroft
Myaga v Ashcroft
Coraggioso v Ashcroft
Mogu v Chertoff
Kamal v Gonzales
Gebre v Rice
Basova v Ashcroft
Przhbelskaya v US BCIS
Lavelle v DHS
Vladagina v Ashcroft
Kudina v INS
Kobzev v US INS
Panescu v INS
[...]
the unparalleled reputation of the US legal system for fairness will be undermined in the international public's eyes as sad stories accumulate of the applicants who successfully sued the government and yet were unable to achieve their goal. Accordingly the public interest is certainly served by this injuction.
[...]
Even if this Court rules in Plaintiff's favor well before September 30, 2012, if their applications have not continued to be processed in the normal course while the litigation continues, some or most of them may not be able to have their applications completed before the end of FY, making the Court's favorable ruling meaningless.
[...]
The DOS decision is not entitled to Chevron defence.
[...]
The doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability does not apply.
[...]
Courts have been clogged with numerous lawsuits from disappointed would-be diversity immigrants complaining that their applications were not processed quickly enough to be completed by the end of FY:
Masaru v Napolitano
Ahmed v DHS
Markowski v Ashcroft
Myaga v Ashcroft
Coraggioso v Ashcroft
Mogu v Chertoff
Kamal v Gonzales
Gebre v Rice
Basova v Ashcroft
Przhbelskaya v US BCIS
Lavelle v DHS
Vladagina v Ashcroft
Kudina v INS
Kobzev v US INS
Panescu v INS
[...]
the unparalleled reputation of the US legal system for fairness will be undermined in the international public's eyes as sad stories accumulate of the applicants who successfully sued the government and yet were unable to achieve their goal. Accordingly the public interest is certainly served by this injuction.
[...]
Even if this Court rules in Plaintiff's favor well before September 30, 2012, if their applications have not continued to be processed in the normal course while the litigation continues, some or most of them may not be able to have their applications completed before the end of FY, making the Court's favorable ruling meaningless.
CraigToomy
Banned
Nothing too impressive. There's a scan of someone's money order ($440 I assume, there was no amount, probably redacted) and lots of receipts and tracking printouts from people all around the world.
Definitely not everyone, I'd say a third or a half.
Don't remember any mention of it.
Also, previous cases versus Federal government handled by White:
Antonenko et al v DOS
Raduga USA v DOS
Smirnov v USCIS (2006).
It's nowhere written that winning garanty you will receive a green card, or how fast your case should go, it just says that you should move inside the USA till tht end of FY..
Some crazy guys
I wish the court will make a simple interpretation as you have done. Once the word is ambiguous/ unclear, the ONLY next step is, a court will do judicial/statutory interpretation. The purpose and intent of Congress in enacting the statute are considered. Your clear statement rule DOESNOT come anywhere.
Wiki is not a good source for any legal reference. All GOOD and VALID legal sources/ references are on westlaw or lexisnexis.
Anyway, I will leave you to make your own interpretation of the law.
Samusoni
Registered Users (C)
I would love to see the code, and hopefully the database type used
It must be embarassing for the programmer (and his/her supervisors), to have the world see how lously you code
I would love to see the code, and hopefully the database type used
It must be embarassing for the programmer (and his/her supervisors), to have the world see how lously you code
Aa-nope it's a top secret. C'mon everybody do mistakes
The cases are all correct as I have personally read some of them in my constiutional law class before. However, read CAREFULLY to know when and how the "clear statement rule" is applied.
Wiki is a good source for the ordinary person but to get a detailed explanation, analysis,application of the law from articles, caselaw, constitution, federal laws, treaties and all statutes and the constitution of the all the state, WESTLAW and LEXISNEXIS is your guide.
Frankly, no need for this discussion: how the law is applied or not and whether Dos will win or lose. The court will decide everything.
- Status