Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!tartarus.uchicago.edu!learn From: learn@tartarus.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Forced Entry Message-ID: <1991Feb22.183220.27437@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 22 Feb 91 18:32:20 GMT References: <3326@igloo.scum.com> <3331@igloo.scum.com> Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) Organization: Modestly Independent Lines: 36 In article Jim Sharaf writes: >In article <3331@igloo.scum.com> Bill HMRP Vajk writes: >> ~ Bill> I note with mild amusement the mindset of the author of the text. >> ~ Bill> It is obvious who the defendant in Miller v. U.S. was. It wasn't >> ~ Bill> Miller. >> The defendant in the case was the US, period. The case being quoted is >> Miller v. U.S. The history of how the case got there has absolutely >> nothing to do with the fact that the author continued to think of Miller >> as the defendant even when Miller bacame the plaintiff. > It doesn't really matter all that much, but Miller didn't >become the plaintiff when he appealed -- he's still the defendant. It is the mindset to which I was originally referring. Amazing how hung up folks tend to become on the "details." Based on the original complaint, Miller remains the defendant. BUT at the level where we are speaking, Miller is indeed complaining about an injustice against him by the government. He presents his case first, as plaitiff, and the government defends their actions (and the lower level court ruling as well.) If we review the logic of the semantics involved, in Miller v. US it is impossible (within the context of the proceeding at hand) for Miller to be the defendant. Once again, it is the mindset which continues to regard Miller the defendant which was the subject of my commentary. Bill Vajk