ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
I agree, concede and admit that the Minnesota lawyer, commenting on your castigation by a critic of your editorial use of the redundancy, "sent back down and remanded" does make a good, valid, cogent point.

Yes, the "Cotton Mather" humor of the critic, scathingly bringing to your attention, heed, notice and regard through that censure, condemnation, disapproval and correction of your use of the redundance certainly is "a hoot", to coin her colorful, but hackneyed, euphemism.

Certainly a well educated linguistically oriented, "top English student graduate from a major University, former law review member, and published attorney author in a law review" is in a clear and concise position, capacity, post and station to objectively dissect, discern and disseminate a critique of the subtle nuances of the English language, here in a rapier-like manner, similar to that of a skilled surgeon slicing the skin of a sickly citizen in the emergency room of an over-crowded inner city hospital. In my humble opinion, she did that quite well, convincingly, and pretty good too. The point is, redundance is good. Especially in the cockpit of a jetliner or a rocket to the Moon, where you only get one chance to make it back alive.

As our scholar has so aptly, eloquently, articulately and expressively stated, demonstrated, and made a point of, is that the ILW.COM "audience of some para professionals and lay persons" may lack her coveted command of the King's English, and therefore, and because of that lack of education, sophistication, command of vocabulary and literary aplomb, may need guidance in order to understand that, in the linguist's words, ""remand" means for the higher court to return the opinion back to the lower court for additional findings or other action". Therefore, undeniably, repetition creates clear clarity. As does the linguist, I give kudos to the editors of ILW.COM for a job well done by using the repetitious redundancy for the clarification of all, lawyers, laymen and para professionals alike, and cast a sneerful shadow of cynicism upon anyone who would criticize redundance.

However, I whole-heartedly, completely and totally agree with the "accomplished linguist" that, "next time, perhaps, (you should) put the definition in parenthesis/es for the non-lawyers." Or, for lawyers like I, who were not on law review. After all, as she states, "This is actually the best writing, when you make your word usage of terms clear for all of your readers." Or, I believe, when you write clearly and concisely; but either way is good.

Well, all this is now certainly clear, apparent, and obviously plain to me, thank you very much! Before you remand this back down to your readers, I hope you will allow this ray of humor to brighten your day and spread sunshine on our troubled world, in the hope that peace is dawning on the morrow.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA