On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Greg Broiles wrote:
At 12:03 PM 8/19/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 3:29 AM 8/19/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:
I suspect they are trying to get a judgement against "John Doe", in the hopes of tracking him down later.
Actually, if I had a sizeable judgement against such a John Doe, I could probably find a private detective who would find the dude for a contingent fee. Wow, a whole new class of factoring (commerce definition) opens up. Get me a lawyer....
Sure, there are collection people who do this regularly; it's also possible to sell judgements for a fraction of their face value.
Lawyers out there can and should correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe either the criminal or civil justice system has the concept of a "John Doe" trial! The ability to have the advice of an attorney, to confront one's accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and mount a defense, and all that constitutional stuff. Rather hard to do if the trial is in the past tense.
Can you cite an example of such a "John Doe" trial in the U.S.?
Not exactly, but judgements against John Doe's or even "$956,334.34" are common. Typically they are default judgements where a property seizure is involved.
"The United States of America v. $534,444.00" and "The United States of AMerica v. One Red Porsche" is a common theme.
It is possible to name unknown defendants in a suit - the tradition is to name them as, literally, "John Doe" or "John Does 1-6, unknown Washington County Sheriff's Deputies". The idea is that at some point prior to trial you'll learn the names of the defendants and then ask the court for permission to amend your complaint to add the newly found names.
I should have been clearer. Indeed an in rem jurisdiction case relies on the property seizure as notice. A default judgement against for example, $233,445.00 and several unnamed individuals" would clearly have problems along the service of process lines if ever contested. Practically speaking, however, the above are judgements against "John Doe"'s. Clearly this is not a "trial" in the strict sense of the word.
But naming someone in a suit is not sufficient to give them notice that they've been sued, so that they know to file an answer and otherwise defend themselves. At least in Oregon (state & Fed courts, since Fed courts borrow the state's rules for service of process, Fed Rul Civ Pro 4(e)(1)), service by publication (as mentioned in another message) is only allowed where the plaintiff files an affidavit that they have tried every other appropriate means of service and they have been unsuccessful, or that they have reason to know it will be unsuccessful. ORCP 7(D)(7). Service by publication is relatively rare.
Agreed.
The connection between the service-of-process problem and the in rem cases Black Unicorn mentioned (e.g., "United States v. $405,089.23") is that the owner of the property is supposedly put on notice by the seizure or attachment of the property itself. A court can exercise jurisdiction over *stuff* (e.g., property) and enter a judgement against the stuff even if it hasn't gained jurisdiction (via service of process) over the person who owns the stuff. In the most common seizures, the stuff is seized from one or more people; those people are also given notice of the seizure and their right to contest it.
Nicely put.
-- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles@netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li