“Mueller’s team wanted the attorneys for the company he is going after to write briefs on whether their was proper service...even though those attorneys said they had received it.
No. That’s not what is going on here. The Summons has nothing to do with anything. It’s no more necessary here than your plane ticket would be after you’ve boarded your flight and taken off.
The Politico article is written by someone who doesn’t know how jurisdiction works.
For a court to get personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the Defendant either has to be lawfully served with a Summons AND a Complaint, or VOLUNTARILY appear. Once the Defendant voluntarily makes a “general appearance”, Jurisdiction is obtained. The summons has no further role.
There is a thing called a “special appearance” or “limited appearance”, where the Defendant (more likely his attorney) shows up for the sole purpose of quashing the service of the Summons, saying either “your Summons is no good, or you failed to lawfully serve it, so you have no personal jurisdiction over me”. But a GENERAL appearance is a submission to jurisdiction.
You will have made a general appearance if you have done anything to fight the “merits” of the case. For example filing an answer denying you did it, or saying that the Complaint is defective, or by SERVING DISCOVERY on the Plaintiff.
I kept asking myself why are we hearing about summons being sent, or sent and refused, or not properly being processed, when the Defendant ALREADY made a general appearance by serving discovery.
The answer is, the author of the article is clueless.
Here’s the money quote, five paragraphs in. This is the ONLY thing that counts:
“”Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery”
I kept asking myself why are we hearing about summons being sent, or sent and refused, or not properly being processed, when the Defendant ALREADY made a general appearance by serving discovery.
The answer is, the author of the article is clueless.
Here’s the money quote, five paragraphs in. This is the ONLY thing that counts:
“”Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery”
**************************************************************
Good clear explanation — thanks!
And, IMHO, EVERYTHING about Mueller and his team is pettifoggery.
I thought that was what I said but recognize you have specific legal expertise.
Mueller may have hired a boatload of Democratic lawyers, but they clearly were not chosen for their mastery of the law.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-3131-d4e8-a5ff-b7732a9e0000