Thanks! Even though most of us, myself included, aren’t literal descendants of the Pilgrims, we can all see ourselves as the inheritors of their devotion to hard work, self-government, and religious liberty. Should historians also study the historical record in all of its complexity? Sure. But knowing that there is a more complicated story to the Pilgrims than the simple story of our civic mythology is no more reason to abandon the civic mythology than study of the “historical Jesus” is, for Christians, to abandon faith in the Gospels, or study of the historicity of the Exodus is, for Jews, to stop staying, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt, and God freed us with a mighty hand.” Life with no civic myths but super-accurate history textbooks is pretty grim.

Thanks, Jack, for the insight on New Zealand practice. This is a point on which I would expect jurisdictions to find a way to agree despite constitutional or doctrinal issues.

Quasi in rem jurisdiction, in US practice, is a term used to describe a kind of personal jurisdiction substitute, not to describe subject-matter jurisdiction. This stuff gets a bit confusing!

Under NZ’s High Court Rule 6.27(2)(m), a plaintiff can serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction without leave “when it is sought to enforce any judgment or arbitral award” (see also CPR Practice Direction 6B). Where the defendant has assets in New Zealand amenable to enforcement, then the court would ordinarily find that NZ is the appropriate forum for an enforcement action. This is a relatively new provision, but has already been used: in Korea Deposit Insurance Corp v Park [2016] NZHC 602, the proceedings were served on the defendant’s jailer in South Korea, and the Court was even prepared to give judgment including 25% penalty interest.