trial court excuse me the response and then the the there was a motion in that response to dismiss the petition for a rule to show cause for lack of jurisdiction of the trial court the motion was heard on december fifteenth are you confusing traditional notice of notions of jurisdiction with your first action for purposes of collecting child support i'm a confusing what your honor traditional notions of jurisdiction with jurisdiction as it relates to collecting child and he finally the the trial court in effect in his final order march twenty sixth of two thousand and seven reaffirmed its original finding that it had  honor of this court may review the issue or jurisdiction as a matter of public importance in order to obtain a just result and on the merits of the appeal no be used to not waive the issue of the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and received that the notice and the income withholding order are in mississippi it became subject to section one three twenty five sixty nine two of the mississippi  and what that says to nobody is a mississippi employer you want to treat that with only water and a notice that you received as if it was issued by a court in mississippi where it worked when was the first time burden to present this court with a complete record with regard to the hearings and jurisdiction so i'm differentiating between there can be a waiver of jurisdiction i i think case was pretty clear the courts have a duty to you know make sure they have jurisdiction but what are we going to review if indeed the opposing counsel is correct that you didn't raise it in your motion to reconsider you it's not him there's no report proceedings or bystanders report of the hearing and any objection to jurisdiction i mean what do we have to review here and determine if we agree with you that traditional notions of jurisdiction apply thank you or you the the petition for rule to show cause for lack of jurisdiction of the trial court that's one document you have that's in the record your honor the other document that's in the record is the petition for really show cause which was filed by the petition support which is relevant because there are certain questions that had to be answered in that on that notice in order to enable a notice to comply with the order that was sent to it so all and of course the record your honor is available before it so those are the documents that are available before this court to reveal and your honour's my understanding according to case law that the this court may review those documents  reasons section six six six a of the title forty two in the snow a crowd of forty two is entitled public health and welfare section a part of it is in title types of procedures required and states clearing that in order to pursue you'd have to be in state laws in order to satisfy section sixty four twenty eight of title forty two in order to enable the states to get federal funding for support of their child support enforcement laws of the state and the purpose being to increase the effectiveness of the programs which states administer now in particular nine b which the appella twenty five sixty nine two does that in fact in the mississippi code it says that in effect that the that the out of state employee in this case mississippi no b s is to treat that ordered as if it was issued by a mississippi court that's full faith and credit and further so nobody is speaking subject to the mississippi law and for failure to comply with that section ninety three twenty five sixty nine to it was subject to penalty according to mississippi law in section ninety three twenty five bash seventy five so your honors and the comparable provisions in the illinois uniform interstate family support as it was issued by an illinois court in a failure to comply with that order subjects it to illinois section seven fifteen twenty eight thirty five eight wherein the penalties of illinois are imposed on that illinois employer i believe that the interpretation that no b s is given to these sections are supported by twenty eight united states called seven hundred thirty eight b plan to see c and in illinois even in illinois twenty two to a one a eight non resident employer and paragraph eight in effect is saying that whatever it is it has to be consistent with united states and illinois constitutions and i'm submitting that what happened here was not consistent with the united states constitution nor the only constitution now more particularly twenty eight united states kurang to one seventy three a capital b small c is entitled we crimes of child support orders were in one be required to the court had personal jurisdiction over the contestants which is defined in some paragraph a has to mean a person who is under a child support order in this case no b s was under a child support order when that uniform order from illinois was sent to it there is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of the state any i states but the exercise of personal jurisdiction owed section sixty nine two and on and on sixty seven with the with with the illinois provisions twenty two two will want to hey as well as you are a little more long on statute and due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and in the united states constitution and the supreme court case of international sho clause international issue and it only one on statute were not relevant that they were not the relevant determinants of the issue of jurisdiction and so i submit that those are the relevant considerations namely the  dollars and sixteen cents further notice that was sent in not have answers to questions which would enable no b s to determine and comply with federal and mississippi law as to whether to hold fifty percent if the factor sent sixty percent or sixty five although nobody else was confronted with a withholding word that it could not comply with there could be normal failure to withhold because what was to be withheld there wasn't sufficient information to withhold and further your honor nobody's had no control over this and control over the as to whether or not you withhold in the penalty application is was a factor that this court mentioned in its court and its case in miller a of course it was also mentioned in chan well the notice had no control over what to do it could not comply with something you cannot comply with avoid order that is in a sentence what happened here court relied on because that was just the amount that was withheld after nobody's received the petition for a rule to show cause and enough for it to make a good faith effort at complying it decided well maybe i should hold fifty percent and  that not significant in that sense information to do something in order to comply with the federal statutes and a state statute that says you hold either fifty percent if five percent sixty percent or thirty five percent depending on the yes or no answers to those questions which were are is  llinois law when in fact nobody's was subject to mississippi law because they said when an order came in ninety three to twenty five sixty one to apply and for failure to comply twenty three twenty five seventy however if your honor for the however for reasons as to whether or not the conduct of no be as well as egregious and all of that would be addressed only for the purpose of showing whether or not the  the penalty twenty eight thirty five should have been employed on our web or if it were in a case like in the case where an employer was excuse me in a case chad was employed as a math back yards i believe this is a case of first impression because there was nor was i could not find any cases either illinois or any other jurisdiction to the best of my ability which said that which addressed the issue specifically or not a it please the court mr damian good morning my name is joseph paul and i represent susan i believe there are two issues presented before the court in today's argument number one is whether the trial court had before it a motion containing any allegations of fact or whether any facts were presented in the trial court which would support claim that the court lacked your stiction over the apple lot no b s and corporate it and secondly in its brief no b s raises the issue of whether the statutory penalty of one hundred dollars per day or no b s is knowing compliance with withholding act was unconstitutional section five two three zero one of the illinois a code of civil procedure provides that a party may have jack to the court's jurisdiction over the parties person either on the grounds that is not amenable to process of court of in this state or on the grounds of his sufficiency of process or insufficiency of service by filing a motion to dismiss or motion to quash section two three zero one further provides that unless the facts that cast the to the basis for the objection or apparent from papers already on file in the case the motion must be supported by an affidavit setting forth those facts finally section two three zero one provides that  ruling against the objecting party on the object and on the objection is waived if the party takes further part in the proceedings unless the objection is on the grounds that the party is not amenable to process of the sta moves the petition for rule to show cause and other relief against after said employer be dismissed in the prayer for relief of that response notice request that the court dismissed the petition for a rule to show cause nobody says response does not constitute a motion as it does not contain any allegations of fact which would support any relief it contains only bare conclusions no b s his response is not supported by an affidavit or notice is response containing its own only arguable objection to jurisdiction in the trial court number one as i stated does not constitute a motion and it doesn't set forth any facts upon which relief can be requested and by not filing effectively a motion there is no issue of jurisdiction before this court and it was not raised in the proper manner in the trial court and therefore cannot be raised on appeal second areas in which a party can object to personal jurisdiction under two three zero one i think that i don't think there's any question but that no b s waived service of process and insufficiency of process by proceeding further in the case i don't believe that no b s by proceeding further in the case waved an argument that it wasn't amenable to the process of the state but i do believe that section two three zero one is clear how no b s would need to raise that objection and i believe will be just did not do so it did not later raise it in its motion to reconsider and for a new trial and therefore i think it's not an issue which the appellate court can address for the first time as i said notice did not specify whether it was objecting on the basis of service of process on insufficiency of process or on the basis that it was not amenable to process of the state no court reported record of the hearing no bystanders report was submitted and there's no record whatsoever but for the written order of the one page written order of the trial court of the summer fifteenth two thousand and six in that order the trial court found that it had jurisdiction over no b s the findings of fact of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence and i submit that there is no ability for this court in sum and substance there is no evidence that no b s is an out of state employee or in fact the trial court inherently found to the contrary and therefore there is no issue of jurisdiction in this case the second issue raised in nobody says brief is the cast the two shall be of the fine this court directly directly dealt with that issue in the case of in re the marriage of miller decided about one year ago in the miller case this court held that a statutory up penalty against its employer against an employer for violating the withholding act in the amount of one million one hundred seventy two thousand one hundred dollars did not violate the employer's substance of due process rights in this case the statutory penalty is three hundred sixty nine thousand dollars in miller the court espouse certain principles including that all statutes carry a strong presumption of constitution reviewing court is to resolve doubts in favor of constitutional validity in this case nobody spares the burden of rebutting the strong presumption of constitutionality by clearly demonstrating the statutes constitutional infirm the test to be applied is the rational basis test under which the statute need only bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest in applying this test we look to the state's legitimate interest in determining whether the one hundred dollars per day penalty rationally advances that interest this court in the miller case citing the sheppard case stated that it is difficult to imagine a more compelling state interest than the support of children and further that the needs of the custody of parents and their children for swift establishment and rapid enforcement of support obligations is obvious in this case will be that nobody has violated the withholding act three thousand six hundred and nine times the noticed withhold income for support was sent by certified mail return receipt requested there's no question but that it was properly received and those complies with the withholding act in that inform notice of its obligations to withhold further th notice explain that if the amount to be withheld exceeded the amount by law in its employees state enormous should only withhold the amount allowed by it someplace state in this case no b s was completely in control of the amount of the penalty notice refused to withhold claiming this refusal was based on the representation of its employees attorney however when questioned at the hearing no b s is representative acknowledged that nobody's had received the notice and had never received an order modifying vacating or or terminating the notice to withhold the one hundred dollars a day penalty was based on fifteen separate pay periods from which nobody's fail to all nobody is did not and has still not paid over the original amount which the court found it should have but did not withhold some seventy eight hundred fifty four dollars and fifty six months notice also for the first time on appeal raises the issue of the effect of its fine on its own financial well being i note no b s offered no evidence to support this argument at the trial level this court in the miller case addressed this issue head on as this court stated in the miller case our lawmakers are under no obligation to make unlawful conduct affordable particularly where multiple statutory violations are at issue nobody's knowingly refused to comply with the statute three thousand six hundred ninety times and created its own penalty of three hundred sixty nine thousand dollars for foregoing reasons i asked this court to affirm the opinion of the second it was sent to was mississippi as the attorney general as am because prefer pointed out a corporation can be subject to the jurisdictions of several states and i think that may well be the case or all cases to hear the burden in their petition to show that the court has jurisdiction over not a state corporation that was not done that manner and as i indicated the record apparent from the record your honor was a fact that it was mailed to an out of state employer and also apparent from the record is that the notice to not had the information and that that was required for no visa determine whether to withhold fifty percent fifty five sixty or sixty five and the withholding order itself called for three thousand dollars to be withheld when the employer was only earning two thousand two hundred forty four dollars or sixteen cents order it was in a confused state it tempted to comply by withholding fifty percent that didn't make it right it just it was a reaction to a situation that had to act and you know it would be nice to the supreme court case of kramer that says  did the traditional rule that there must be personal jurisdiction is still valid and with respect to n relied on down the case of william st louis back to get the full citation but it was williams and the point i want to make sure you are is that the williams in the williams supreme court case dating back when a few years there were limits on the penalty is a limit of fifty dollars to three hundred dollars and a fine assessed with seventy five dollars would within the limits thirty five twenty or twenty five day has no limits so i think that's a relevant consideration here with respect to the application because discords said in miller the application was appropriate because the difficulty just of the conduct of the miller was a two and a half year period where it was fighting over whether or not it should withhold an amount that was valid that was within the ability of the employee to pay in this case it's three thousand dollars and he can't he can't comply with that and he can't he can mend it he can't what should have been done was the employer good employee could have in mississippi pursuant to section ninety three twenty five seventy seven objected to that order and as mr daly of us is just quickly what's wrong with the trial courts analysis that indicated under which the trial court made its decision however it's not in the record source not appropriate for me to comment on it unless you are as wish to know the basis on which the trial court actually made us decision had no control as the two factors that were relevant and in this case i believe so you are i respectfully ask that under those circumstances this court reversed the decision of the thought thank you thank you counsel