Answer: No, because a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction is not on the merits.
Explanation:
Following the information given in the question, it should be noted that the case should not be dismissed by the court due to the fact that the dismissal is based on the lack of personal jurisdiction.
It should be noted that the claim preclusion should be added to the answer of the defendant as it's an affirmative defense and it requires more than the claimant bringing a case against the same defendant.
Yes due to the fact if anyone tried to even speak you could get sued for it no matter the word or words freedom of speech acts as a cushion for your people to feel free and not in a restricted government
Answer:
C.) allowed the person to walk free if the verdict was not guilty by reason of insanity.
Explanation:
The Federal Insanity Reform act of 1984 is a reform act which allow a defendant who is the person who committed a crime to work freely if the decision of the jury was that the defendant was not found guilty by reason of Insanity or mental illness and therefore should not be blame or punished for the crime committed.
Therefore the Federal Insanity Reform act of 1984 allowed the person to walk free if the verdict was NOT GUILTY by reason of INSANITY.
