Does in rem jurisdiction need to include personal jurisdiction over the owner of the res?

⁶ The dissent states that "[n]othing in Hood suggests that a court may exercise in rem jurisdiction without personal jurisdiction over the owner of the res." Dissenting Opinion , p. 1112. But Hood is clear that in rem jurisdiction is "premised on the res, not on the persona"this statement would make no sense if the personal jurisdiction is also necessary. 541 U.S. at 450, 124 S.Ct. 1905. The "owner of the res" is "persona" not "res." In rem jurisdiction does not include an additional personal jurisdiction requirement over the debtor: the debtor filed the petition and 28 U.S.C. 1334(e) provides the bankruptcy court with "exclusive jurisdiction of all the property ... of the debtor ... and of property of the estate." In accordance with traditional in rem principles, jurisdiction over property is all that is required. See also United States v. Gurley , 434 F.3d 1064, 1068 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that when the "government, as a creditor, asserted a right to payment" through filing a proof of claim in debtor's bankruptcy proceeding, "there was no need to establish personal jurisdiction over" the debtor "[b]ecause it was an in rem proceeding").