(legal) "Not Less Than One" [definition from staff report on serial killers]

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

In the staff report about sociopaths/serial killers, Gfactor quotes a definition from the U.S. legal code (underlining added by me)

[QUOTE=28 U.S.C. § 540B]
The term “serial killings” means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States…
[/QUOTE]
Does anyone have a reason for saying “not less than one” instead of “at least one”? I admit the possibility that it’s just someone trying to sound more legal-like by being more obfuscatory, but wondered if there’s some not-obvious reason for using the more awkward construction.

Link to Staff Report: What’s the difference between sociopaths, psychopaths, serial killers, etc.? - The Straight Dope

2

Mathematically, there is no difference between the two, assuming you are talking about whole numbers only.

In everyday English, there might be a connotation of “at least one” (and maybe a whole lot more!) vs. “not less than one” (if that!).

3

I’m pretty sure that in addition to being awkward, it’s wrong.

It should be “…no less than…”

4

Well actually “… no fewer than…” unless you can have partial killings

5

I’m moving this thread from General Questions ot Comments on Staff Reports because the question is about something from a staff report.

Gfactor
General Questions Moderator

6

I’ve also added some context to the thread title. Here is a link to the staff report: What’s the difference between sociopaths, psychopaths, serial killers, etc.? - The Straight Dope

7

Not that I can see. It’s just a slightly more legalistic-sounding phrase. Were I drafting the law, I would use “at least one.”

8

You are referring to an urban legend, an old wives’ tale, so to speak; an alleged rule of grammar that has no actual basis in fact. Rather than hijack the thread, I shall simply link to a previous discussion of this contrived shibboleth.