J.) (“Rule 12(h)(1) does not require the assertion of the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue within the time provided in Rule 12(a) but provides that these defenses will be waived if neither made by motion nor included in a responsive pleading.”); see also Lagana v. Kmart Corp., No. Civ. A. 97-5911, 1998 WL 372347, *3 (E.D.Pa. June 19, 1998) (Gawthrop, J.) (deciding to consider defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion despite untimely filing); Kampf v. Heinecke, Civ. A. No. 94-6452, 1995 WL 262526, *1 (E.D.Pa. April 28, 1995) (McGlynn, J.) (concluding that defendants’ late objection for improper venue was timely, where plaintiff failed to move for default judgment); Elias v. Energy Reduction Sys., Inc., No. Civ. A. 92-4971, 1993 WL 55932, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Mar.2, 1993) (<HOLDING>); Foss v. Klapka, 95 F.R.D. 521, 523
holding that under a 12b2 motion tardiness does not constitute a waiver so long as defendants first response raises the issue holding that after final judgment was entered and defendant did not file a direct appeal the proceedings were no longer pending under rule 12b2 holding that acceptance and investigation of a federal employees complaint does not constitute waiver holding that even though defendants response does not affirmatively state in the document itself that they are competent to testify as to the facts to which they swore does not necessarily doom their testimony  so long as the record taken as a whole demonstrates that their testimony meets the requirements of rule 56 holding that a defendants attorney can waive the defendants sixth amendment confrontation right so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorneys decision and so long as it can be said that the attorneys decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy