Hacker News Reader

Comment by glitch003 | Hacker News Reader

How is the defendant an email account and not a person or party of some kind?

"The form of the styling of this case — the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person — is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case. In current US legal practice, in rem is most widely used in the area of asset forfeiture, frequently in relation to controlled substances offenses. In rem forfeiture cases allow property (in this case, $124,700 in cash) to be directly sued by and forfeited to the government, without either just compensation or the possessor (and presumptive owner) being convicted of a crime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....

A famous one in first-amendment law (and in literature) is United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (1933). Gives it a rather evocative feel, setting up an image of the U.S. government and the book itself battling it out.

There are also some unkind jokes about the state of Kansas derived from the title Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964).

This has nothing to do with civil forfeiture. In rem actions are often used in cases where the owner of some property is unknown. Thus they are commonly used for domain name cybersquatting actions for example.

There was a great article on civil forfeiture in recent New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...

it's basically how the police are allowed to rob you.

Great explanation, thank you!

The email is likely incriminated in some way but the identity of the person that registered/uses the email is unknown.

Humans have rights. Property does not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com