Another reason that failure to file a specific motion to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to KCLR 7(b)(5) was not required is because CR 12(h)(1) specifically provides “A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived. Under these constitutional principles there was no waiver of the Petersons’ right, asserted in their answer and other pleadings, not to be hailed into a court that had no personal jurisdiction over them. In fact, a court must “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental rights.” State v. , that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court, by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard.”) As to the law that waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, see State v. Had Division One panel’s waiver argument been made by the opposing party and its counsel the Petersons, through their counsel, would have been able to demonstrate this position should be rejected because the record reflects the Petersons never agreed to waive their right to adequate, non-fraudulent service of process, which includes being “duly cited to appear.” As to this right, see e.g., Hovey v. Buss, supra., at **11-14 (unpublished) (Held one judge could review the order of another judge where lack of procedural due process was apparent.) See also RAP 2.5. Ct at 1579 (quotation marks omitted).) Cf. , we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id. in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal. 1575 (2020)(“In our adversarial system of adjudication. Under our system of government, the role of courts is not to advance arguments in support of any of the adverse parties. This Court should not follow the Panel’s suggestion that Petersons’ challenge to personal jurisdiction be waived because no party made this argument to either this Court or the Court of Appeals.
0 kommentar(er)
