IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. In Re: Nomination Certificate Of Frederick Ramirez Candidate For Representative in the General Assembly - 197th Legislative District Petition of: James Hines, : Melinda Riggs, Troy Bouie : No. 44 M.D. 2017 and Diep Nguyen : Heard: February 8, 2017 BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: February 23, 2017 The Pennsylvania Democratic Party (Party), by and through Chairman Marcel L. Groen (Groen) and Deputy Executive Director Corey Pellington (Rellington), filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State (Department) a nomination certificate designating Frederick Ramirez, (Candidate) as the Party’s Candidate in the March 21, 2017 special election for State Representative in the 197" Legislative District (Nomination Certificate). James Hines, Melinda Riggs, ‘Troy Bouie and Diep Nguyen (collectively, Objectors)' filed a petition to set aside Candidate’s Nomination Certificate (Objection Petition) as defective based upon Candidate’s residency. Candidate's Counsel stipulated that two of the Objectors are registered Democrats.Background Section 629 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code)? authorized the Party to submit a nomination certificate to fill the 197" Legislative District seat left vacant when former State Representative Leslie Acosta resigned, and specifies that a nomination certificate shall be “in the form prescribed in [Slection 630 of this [Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2780,” 25 P.S. § 2779. Section 630 of the Election Code states that “[e]very nomination certificate for a special election . . . shall set forth... [iJhe ... residence. .. of the candidate...” 25 P.S. § 2780 (emphasis added). Residence is a particularly crucial piece of information because Article II, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that state representatives “shall have been . . . inhabitants of their respective districts one year next before their election (unless absent on the public business of the United States or of this State), and shall reside in their respective districts during their terms of service.” Pa, Const. art. II, § 5 (emphasis added). On January 27, 2017, the Party filed the Nomination Certificate with the Department of State. By executing the Nomination Certificate, Groen and Pellington represented on the Party’s behalf “that ... the... address... . of the candidate duly nominated” is 430 West Annsbury Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140-1539 (430 West Annsbury Street). Obj. Petition Ex. A at 1. Attached to the Nomination Certificate was Candidate’s affidavit, wherein, Candidate declared: I do swear (or affirm) that my residence, my election district and the name of the office for which I desire to be a candidate are as specified below, that 1 am eligible for said office, and that T will not knowingly violate any ? Act of June 3, 1937, P 333, as amended, 25 P.S. §§ 2600-3591, feelection law or any law regulating and limiting nomination and election expenses, and prohibiting corrupt practices in connection therewith; that [ am aware of the provisions of Section 1626 of the [Election Code, 25 P.S. § 3246,"] requiring pre-election and post-election reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures; that... my name has not been presented as a candidate for the same office of any political party or political body other than the one designated herein; that I am not a candidate for an office which I already hold, the term of which is not set to expire in the same year as the office subject to this affidavit, I swear (or affirm) to the above parts as required by the laws applicable to the office I seek. Obj, Petition Ex, A at 2 (emphasis added), Candidate’s affidavit listed his residence as “430 West Annsbury Street,” and his voting district as Philadelphia 42-04, Obj, Petition Ex. A at 2. Objectors claim that Candidate’s name should be stricken fiom the special election ballot because “Candidate does not reside at the stated address and, in fact, does not reside in the 197" Legislative District.” Obj. Petition { 4. The Courts have long held that the Election Code must be construed liberally ‘so as not to deprive an individual of his right to run for office, or the voters of their right to elect a candidate of their choice.’ Nomination Petition of Ross, ... 190 A2d 719, 720 ([Pa.] 1963); accord In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, ... 770 A.2d 327, 331 ({Pa] 2001). Furthermore, ‘the purpose of the Election Code is to protect, not defeat, a citizen's vote.’ Dayhoff v. Weaver, 808 A.2d 1002, 1006 (Pa, Cmwith. 2002). Thus, nomination petitions are presumed to be valid, and it is the objector{s’] heavy burden to prove that a candidate’s nomination petition is invalid. In re Nomination Petition of Shimkus, 946 A.2d 139, 141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (Cohn Jubelirer, J., single judge op.). * Added by Section 2 of the Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 893, 3In re Nomination Petitions of Scott, 138 A.3d 687, 691 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). However, the provisions of the [] Election Code relating, to the form of nominating petitions and the accompanying affidavits are not mere technicalities, but are necessary measures to prevent fraud and to preserve the integrity ‘of the election process, The requirements of sworn affidavits in the [] Election Code are to insure the legitimacy of information crucial to this process. Thus, the policy of liberal reading of this statute cannot be distorted to emasculate those requirements necessary to assure the probity of the election process. In re Nomination Petitions of Melntyre, T78 A.2d 746, 751 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (citations omitted), af’d, 770 A.2d 326 (Pa, 2001). Moreover, “a false affidavit must be [a]t least equated with the failure to execute the affidavit, ... [T]he fact remains that when [an] affidavit [is] taken the facts sworn to [must be] true. [If they are not, sJuch a defect cannot be cured by subsequent conduct and the petition [is] therefore void and invalid.” In re Nomination Petition of Cianfrani, 359 A.2d 383, 384 (Pa. 1976). Accordingly, if Objectors prove that Candidate’s residency statement is intentionally false, the Party’s Nomination Certificate is invalid. See In re Nomination Petition of Hanssens, 821 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), as amended May 20, 2003. Objectors have the burden of proving that Candidate does not reside at 430 West Annsbury Street. See Jn re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 847 A.2d 44 (Pa, 2004). “Under our case law, ‘residence’ in the statutory sense, is synonymous with ‘domicile. In re Estate of Loudenslager, 240 A.2d 477, 479 (Pa, 1968). * Our Supreme Court later qualified Cianfrani, stating: “[BJefore an affidavit may be declared void and invalid because it contains false information, there must be evidence that the candidate knowingly falsified the affidavit with an intent to deceive the electorate.” Jn re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 847 A.2d 44, 5\ (Pa. 2004).“The domicile of a person is the place where he has voluntarily fixed his habitation with a present intention to make it either his permanent home or his home for the indefinite future.” In re Publicker’s Estate, 123 A.2d 655, 658 (Pa. 1965) (emphasis added), A domicile is the place at which an individual has fixed his family home and principal establishment for an indefinite period of time, A domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed and where a change is alleged, the burden of proving it rests upon whoever makes the allegation, A new domicile can be acquired only by physical presence at a new residence plus intent to make that new residence the principal home. Intent is the actual state of facts, not what one declares them to be, Jn re Nomination Petition of Prendergast, 673 A.2d 324, 327-28 (Pa. 1996) (citations omitted; emphasis added), Further, A new domicile can be acquired only by: (1) physical | presence at a new residence; and (2) intent to make that new residence the principal home. Intent is the actual state of facts, not what one declares them to be. Thus, a declaration of intent as to domicile that is self-serving and not followed by acts that are in accord with the declaration will not be regarded as conclusive, Hanssens, 821 A.2d at 1251-52 (citation omitted; emphasis added). On February 3, 2017, this Court entered a Scheduling and Case Management Order setting a hearing for February 8, 2017 on the Objection Petition. The hearing in this matter convened on said date. Candidate and Objectors were represented by counsel. “[T]he tricr of fact, while-passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v, Harper, 403 A.2d 536, 539 (Pa. 1979); 5see also Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa, Cmwith. 2002). “It is within the purview of the fact finder to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.” Ellis v. City of Pittsburgh, 703 A.2d 593, 594 (Pa. Cmwith, 1997). Hearing Objectors’ Evidence Earl Williams Objectors presented Philadelphia Water Revenue Bureau (Bureau) Records Custodian Earl Williams (Williams). Williams testified that he is a supervisor in the Bureau’s Collections Unit and that Objectors’ Exhibit 2 (0-2)° is a copy of the water bills the Bureau generated for 430 West Annsbury Street from January 2015 to February 2017. Williams reported that 100 cubic feet (1 CCF) of water is equivalent to approximately 750 gallons of water, the amount of water needed to be used to move the water company’s meter from one number to the next, In addition, Williams stated that flushing a toilet uses “about between [sic] six and seven and a half gallons” of water. Notes of Testimony, February 8, 2017 (N.T.) at 42, Williams expounded that he lives alone and uses over 1,500 gallons of water per month. “I use a[n] average of 200 cubic feet of water per month[,]” “[olecasionally it will register three.” N.T. at 38. Finally, Williams described a notation printed on the last four water bills in the group of water bills identified as Exhibit O-2° for 430 West Annsbury Street, which read: “Ef property was occupied 5 Exhibit 0-2 is “[Bureau], Account Statements, 68 pages[.]” Notes of Testimony, February 8, 2017 at 34, Bill periods September 28, 2016-October 28, 2016, October 28, 2016-November 28, 2016, November 28, 2016-December 28, 2016, and December 28, 2016-January 26, 2017, 6during zero usage"! please call... .” N.T. at 60. Williams explained that the purpose of the notation is to insure that the meter is actually working, See N.T. at 61. This Court finds Williams credible, Exhibit 0-2 was moved into evidence without objection. Below is a summary of the amount of CCF used as reflected on the Bureau’s bills for 430 West Annsbury Street during the relevant time period. Water _March 2016 — Present Total CCFs Approx. Gallons Bill Period Used _used per day __2/29/16 - 3/28/16 1 28 3/28/16 - 4/30/16 1 21 4/30/16 - 5/28/16 0 iaeaenOMaene _5/28/16 - 6/26/16 1 24 6/26/16 - 7/28/16 oO oO 7/28/16 - 8/26/16 o oee | 8/26/16 - 9/28/16 0 0 9/28/16 - 10/28/16 oO oO 10/28/16 - 11/28/16 1 Z 22 itt 11/28/16 - 12/28/16 0 oO 12/28/16 - 1/26/17 0 oO TOTAL: 4 eae See Ex. O-2. 7 The majority of 430 West Annsbury Street’s water bills submitted as part of Exhibit 0-2 fist 0 CCF water usage for the specified months. ‘The exact figures will be listed further herein,Linda Lambertson Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) Records Custodian and Customer Service Department Supervisor Linda Lambertson (Lambertson) testified that Objectors’ Exhibit 1 (O-1) is a copy of a printout of PECO’s account statement summaries for the electric service furnished to 430 West Annsbury Street from January 23, 2015 to January 24, 2017. She further reported that Exhibit O-1 also includes copies of PECO account statement summaries for the electric usage at 8875 Ridge Avenue, Apartment 60, Philadelphia (8875 Ridge Avenue),* and 2161 North Front Street, First Floor, Philadelphia (2161 North Front Street). This Court finds Lambertson credible, Exhibit O-1 was moved into evidence without objection. Below is a listing of the electric usage in kilowatt hours (KWH) as reflected on PECO’s account summaries for 430 West Annsbury Street and 8875 Ridge Avenue during the relevant time period. § The relevance of this address will be described further herein. ° Candidate’s Counsel stipulated that the records relative to 4161 North Front Street were in fact PECO records, and that the numbers on each page reflected the kilowatt hours used. See N.T. at 82,Electric Mareh 2016 to January 2017 He __ Comparison, kw Kwa Bill Period AnnsburySt.| __Cost__| Ridge Ave._| Cost _ March 2016" HgiiiBal $20.71 580 $83.64 April 2016"! 89 $21.59 586 $84.40 May 20167 sg | S244 | 342 $51.09 Tune 2016" 133 $27.70 341 $57.20 July 2016 115 $24.88 474 $76.22 August 2016" 14 $24.74 | 367 $61.95 September 2016" 143 $29.28 47 $68.99 October 2016" 84 $20.68 _ 398 | $59.26 _| _November 2016" | 76 $19.51 469 $67.28 December 2016 101 $22.88 167 | $103.92. January, 2017 109 $23.97 860 $115.42 TOTAL: 1137 $257.38 | S601 $829.37 See Ex. O-1, '® Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 2/26/16 ~ 3/23/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 3/3/16 - 4/1/16, ‘" Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 3/23/16 ~ 4/21/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 4/1/16 ~ 5/2/16. "2 Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 4/21/16 — 5/20/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 5/2/16 — 6/1/16. '® Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 3/20/16 ~ 6/21/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 6/1/16 ~ 6/30/16. '* Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 6/21/16 ~ 7/21/16; actual billing petiod for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 6/30/16 - 8/1/16, 'S Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 7/21/16 — 8/19/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 8/1/16 — 8/30/16. 'S Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 8/19/16 — 9/20/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 8/30/16 — 9/29/16, "7 Actual billing petiod for 430 West Annsbury Street is 9/20/16 -10/19/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 9/29/16 — 10/28/16. '® Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 10/19/16 ~ 11/17/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 10/28/16 — 11/30/16. Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 11/17/16 ~ 12/20/16; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 11/30/16 — 1/3/17. * Actual billing period for 430 West Annsbury Street is 12/20/16 — 1/24/17; actual billing period for 8875 Ridge Avenue is 1/3/17 ~ 2/2117. 9Gary Deetz Election Compliance Document Specialist Gary Deetz (Deetz) testified that he works for the Philadelphia City Commissioner’s Office as a Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) systems operator. Deetz stated that according to his search in the SURE system, Candidate registered to vote in 1991 with 430 West Annsbury Street listed as his residence, and he voted in- person in the 197° Legislative District in the 2014, 2015 and 2016 primary and general elections, but did not vote in 2013. Deetz further related that the SURE system revealed that Mannix Ortiz Diaz (Diaz)"' also registered to vote, listing 430 West Annsbury Street as his residence. Moreover, Deetz explained that Diaz registered to vote in 2014, and voted in-person in the 197" Legislative District in the 2016 primary and general elections, as well as the 2014 and 2015 general elections. Finally, Deetz reported that the SURE system showed Marianna AlMaya (AlMaya)” as having registered to vote, listing 1032 Radcliffe Street, apartment D-14, Bristol, Pennsylvania (1032 Radcliffe Street) as her residence. This Court finds Deetz credible. Nidia Quintella Nidia Quintella (Quintella) testified that she moved to West Annsbury Street in May 2016, and that 430 West Annsbury Street is “across the street [from her house]. It’s like across the street, there is a little street, then it’s on the corner.” NT. at 97. Quintella stated that she has never seen Candidate entering or exiting 430 West Annsbury Street. After Candidate was identified in the courtroom, 2 Diaz will be described further herein, # AlMaya is Candidate's girlfriend. See N.T. at 167. 10Quintella reported: “I’ve seen him in the neighborhood, you know, getting in ot out of his car, but I’ve never actually seen him going in” or out of 430 West Annsbury Street, at 98, This Court finds Quintella credible. Ubania Cruz Ilbania Cruz (Cruz) testified that she moved into 429 West Annsbury Street in September 2016, directly across the street from 430 West Annsbury Street, When asked if anybody lived at 430 West Annsbury Street, Cruz explained: “I thought nobody lived in that property[]” “[bJecause nobody is never there. I seen — one time I seen this young guy go in there, but he was in and out. And then I saw a short Spanish man, but he was also in and out.” N.T. at 104, Cruz also testified that “[tJhe light is always on in the bedroom” at 430 West Annsbury Street, N.T. at 108. However, when Candidate was identified to her in the courtroom, she stated that she did not recognize him, and had never seen him, When questioned about whether she has ever seen trash placed for collection in front of 430 West Annsbury Street, Cruz responded: “I’ve never seen any trash, Even when I put out my trash, I’ve never seen no trash in front of that house. ‘That's the only house that doesn’t have trash.” N.T. at 106, In answer to Candidate's Counsel’s inquiry about whether Cruz spends a lot of time outside her house, Cruz rejoined: A, [Cruz] Yeah. [] I spend a lot outside but more inside in my room, My bed is right smack dab in the window. I sit on my bed and I can see everybody walking up and down, going in and out the houses. Q. [Candidate’s Counsel} But you're not staring all the time?A. Oh, yes, I am staring because I was shot, so I stare at everything, N.T. at 107, Finally, Cruz reiterated: “Like I said, I pay attention to a lot, the way people look, their height, everything. You know, ever since I got shot, that’s like — it’s like a phobia of mine that I have to pay attention to everything.” Id, This Court finds Cruz credible. Deborah Anne Havey Republican City Committee person Deborah Anne Havey (Havey) testified that she went to the 400 block of West Annsbury Street to ask the residents whether anybody lived at 430 West Annsbury Street, Havey stated that she spoke to five people - one of whom stated she was aftaid to give a statement, and four others who gave her a statement, She related that she spoke to Quintella and Cruz, as well as Jasmine Aviles (Aviles) and Willie Walker (Walker). Havey explained that she identified herself, and pointed to 430 West Annsbury Street and asked if anyone lived there. Expressly, Havey asked Aviles “if she was aware if anybody lived in that house” and, after Aviles responded, Havey inquired “if she would be willing to make a statement to that effect in writing.” NT. at 114-115, After Aviles answered, Havey “g[alve her a piece of paper, asked her to make the statement in writing and sign it, And then [Havey] asked her if [Havey] could also notarize, and [Havey] had a witness with [her], and proceeded to do so. [Havey is] a Notary.” N.T. at 115. Objectors’ Counsel sought to admit Aviles’ affidavit into evidence (Objectors’ Exhibit 4 (O-4)) as an exception under the hearsay rule pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence (Rule) 804(a)(2), Candidate’s Counsel objected to 12its admissibility on the grounds that it was unknown whether Aviles was unavailable or simply not in court; and that Havey is not competent under the Notary Public Law (NPL)** to notarize the document since she prepared the affidavit. The Court held the objection under advisement, requesting the parties to submit memoranda of law. With respect to Walker, Havey testified that she identified herself to him, pointed to the house at 430 West Annsbury Street, and asked if he was familiar with the house. Havey specifically “asked [Walker] if he was aware if anyone lived in the house at 430 West Annsbury Street. And when he responded, [she] asked him to put the response in [writing].” N.T. at 148. Candidate’s Counsel inquired of Havey with regard to being a notary: Q [Candidate’s Counsel] Did you ask these people for their driver’s licenses? A. [Havey] No, I did not. Q Did you ask them for any form of identification. A.No, I didn’t. N.T. at 148-149, This Court finds Havey credible, Candidate’s Counsel renewed his objection to the admissibility of Aviles’ and Walker’s affidavits and added that Havey did not comply with the NPL. The Court held the objection under advisement and directed both Counsel to ® Act of August 21, 1953, P.L. 1323, as amended, 57 P.S, §§ 147-169, The NPL was repealed by the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, Act of October 9, 2013, P.L. 609, 57 Pa.C.S. § 301-331, However, the repeal does not become effective until 180 days after published notice of notary course approval which, according to the Department of State, has not yet ocurred, Accordingly, the NPL is still in effect.address the additional argument in their memoranda of law. The Court now rules on the affidavits’ admissibility into evidence. Objectors sought to have Aviles’ and Walker's affidavits admitted into evidence under Rule 804(a)(2), Rule 804 provides exceptions to hearsay exclusions in circumstances where a declarant is unavailable as a witness. Rule 804(a)(2) specifies that a declarant is unavailable when he or she “refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so[.] Rule 804(a)(5)(B) further states a declarant is unavailable if he is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement’s proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure: (B) the declarant’s attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(2)[] PaRE, 804(a)(5)(B) (emphasis added). Notwithstanding, pursuant to Rule 804(b), even if a declarant is unavailable under Rule 804(a), the declarant’s statement will only be admissible if it is one of five types: (1) former testimony; (2) statements made under the belief of imminent death; (3) statements against interest; (4) statements of personal or family history; and, (5) statements offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. Pa.R.E, 804(b), Because the affidavits presented herein do not fall within any of the above-stated categories, they are not admissible under Rule 804(a)(2). Accordingly, Candidate’s objection to the affidavits is sustained on this basis. A subpoena is an order of the court commanding a person to attend and testify at a particular time and place.” Pa.R.C.P, No. 234.1 14Moreover, Aviles’ and Walker’s affidavits were not properly notarized, An “affidavit” is defined as “[a] voluntary declaration of facts written down and sworn to by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.” Black's Law Dictionary 66 (9th ed. 2009). Notaries are officers authorized to “administer oaths” and to “take . . . affidavits . . . upon oath or affirmation . according to law.” Section 16(a) of the NPL, 57 P.S, § 162(a). Section 12.1(a) of the NPL” mandates: The officer notarizing the instrument shall know through personal knowledge or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before the notary is the person described in and who is executing the instrument, For the purposes of this [NPL]... , ‘personal knowledge’ means haying an acquaintance, derived from association with the individual in relation to other people and based upon a chain of circumstances surrounding the individual, which establishes the individual’s identity, and ‘satisfactory evidence’ means the reliance on the presentation of a current, government-issued identification card bearing a photograph, signature or physical description and serial or identification number, or the oath or affirmation of a credible witness who is personally known to the notary and who personally knows the individual 57 P.S. § 158.1 (bold and italic emphasis added). Here, Havey testified that she was not personally acquainted with Aviles or Walker (hence, she had to introduce herself to them), and she did not verify their identifications, Because the affidavits were not notarized in accordance with the NPL, Candidate’s objection to the affidavits’ admissibility is also sustained on this basis. * Added by Section 7 of the Act of December 9, 2002, P.L, 1269, $7 P.S. § 158.1. 15Candidate Finally, Objectors presented Candidate” who testified that Diaz. does periodic work at 430 West Annsbury Street, Specifically, Candidate related that “[elvery now and then [Diaz] does répairs there,” but he does not live there; although, “[hJe lived [o]n the first floor for a short time, a couple years back.” N.T. at 160, With respect to Diaz’ repairs, Candidate explained: Q. [Objectors’ Counsel] And how often does he go to the property [430 West Annsbury Street]? A. [Candidate] He goes to the property at least three times a week. Q. To do what kind of repairs? A. Well, it can be any repair as needed. Also the basement to the property, if I ask for paperwork to be removed from my office in the clinic, which is 30 paces away, there is a side entrance to the house that I keep files there, Q. Now, you said [Diaz] goes there three times a week to do repairs? A. Approximately, yes. Q. So today is Wednesday. Has he already been there this week to do repairs? A. No. Q. How about last week? A. I don’t believe so, Q. How about the week before that? 76 Objectors’ Counsel's request to sequester Candidate’s witnesses was granted. 16A. Yes. Q. And what kind of repairs did he do? A. Anything that is called for from the steps to a tile loose inside the property. Q. Okay, So if he wasn’t there this week, he wasn’t there last week, The week before what kind of the repairs did he do? A, Well, let me think. I know he was on the side door in the basement putting some files in there. And I think there was some outside steps, concrete steps that he was taking care of. Q. What was he doing to the concrete steps? A. Repairing. Q. So was he mixing concrete? A, I wasn’t there, so. Q. Was he using water at the property? A. Probably. Q. And when did he move out of the residence? A. Ido not recall. That was a couple years back. N.T. at 161-162 (emphasis added). With respect to the property at 8875 Ridge Avenue, Candidate testified: This property is two blocks away from where [my daughter] lives with her mother, so it’s is [sic] appropriate, which is the reason why I had it two or three years ago, because [my daughter] was of an age where she was now hesitant to come to 430 West Annsbury. So I stay there, two blocks away from where she lives. She comes on over and that is how we keep our repour [sic]. 17N.T, at 163-164, Candidate expounded: “[His daughter] has a bedroom there with me, and she goes in and out, and she’s very comfortable there.” N.T. at 187. When questioned with respect to where he sleeps at night, Candidate described: Q. So in a given week, how many nights do you stay at the Annsbury Street residence? A, It could be two or three nights easily. Q. Okay. And how many nights do you stay at the 8875 Ridge Avenue apartment? A. Possibly one night a week, if I have to be at Lower Bucks Hospital the following morning early. Q. At 8875 Ridge Avenue, why would you stay there if you— A. Ob, no, no. I thought you meant Bristol. Ridge Avenue I stay during the weekends, Q. Two nights during the weekend? A. Friday, Saturday, and then Sunday, And then I come back to my home in Annsbury the following morning, NLT, at 186 (emphasis added), With regard to 430 West Annsbury Street, Candidate explained that he does not do his laundry there. He does his laundry at 8875 Ridge Avenue. Candidate stated that he washes dishes about “twice” a week, flushes the toilet “[elvery day” and showers “probably three or four times during the week” at 430 West Annsbury Street, N.T. at 166. Candidate related that his girlfriend lives at 1032 Radcliffe Street, and he “can be there one or two nights depending on what is needed for the patients at Lower Bucks Hospital or our clinic[.}” N.T. at 168. 18Candidate explained that he had been to Haiti in 2010 as part of the rescue efforts after the earthquake. He stated that he had been interviewed by several newspapers regarding his work in Haiti, Objectors’ Counsel marked Exhibit O-6"" for identification and presented it to Candidate. When asked if he was interviewed for this article, Candidate responded: “Frankly, I don’t recall if I was interviewed, I was interviewed at the time by many, several neighborhood and Philadelphia papers.” N.T. at 172. Candidate, however, confirmed that although he did not remember this interview exactly, seeing the article refreshed his memory and “it sounds like something [he] would say” because it is “an accurate reflection” of his “feelings, absolutely[,]” N.T. at 173-174. When questioned expressly about his residence, Candidate rejoined: Q. Okay. All right. So the next -- on the second page, the first full paragraph, it states that [Candidate] was at home in Bristol for just two weeks. Would you know why the author of this article referred to you being home in Bristol? A.No. Q. And not Philadelphia? A. No, I was -- of course, I assumed that we had the Bristol clinic then, as we do now, but most of our medical supplies come from Philadelphia, not Bristol. So, no, I don’t know why the author of this would say -- uniess he meant that I was home in Philadelphia. Q. Now, do you have any clinics on Radcliffe Street? 7 Exhibit 0-6 is a 3-page article.A. We are now opening ‘up [sic] comer of Mill and Radeliffe[.] Q. How about in 20107 A.No. Q Were there any of your clinics ~ A.No. Q. ~ on Radcliffe Street? A.No. Q. So the only address associated with you on Radcliffe Street would have been 1032 Radcliffe? A. Which is [AlMaya’s] address. Q. Okay. All right. So if you look at the center of the page right below your photograph, the author refers to the Radcliffe Street resident and Executive Director of Pan American Health. Now, was that accurate at the time in 2010 that you were a Radcliffe Street resident? A. No. Q, So just to be clear, your quotes appear accurate to you, that are in this article? A. Some. I have to recall what I thought and what I quoted in 2010, Q. And the ~ A. But that is not a quote. Q. So the author pretty much got right your thoughts on Haiti? A.J think the author got right the thoughts of the time on Haiti and what was going on. 20Q. And when she quoted you, you said that that quote sounds like something that you would say? A. I don’t recall the quote, but it sounds like something I would say[.] Q. And if you look above your photograph on the second page, the author stated you're ‘A Holy Spirit School Catholic University scholarship student at Temple U on a PhD, psychology and clinical social work;’ is that accurate? A. At the time I was the candidate, yes. Everything above that is accurate, Temple University, Catholic University, and my studies, yes. Q And you were born in San Juan Puerto Rico? A. That's correct. Q. And when you were born, you lived with your parents. So that’s accurate what the article wrote about that? A. Yes. Q. And your deceased father was a warehouse owner? A. Yes, and factory worker. Q. And your mother’s name was Carmen? A. That’s correct, Q. So the article got your mother’s name correct? A. Yes, At the time there were a lot of newspaper articles surrounding, okay, [Candidate], who are you? Like, who are your parents? Who are... .? Q. And you have a sister named Eileen? A, Yes, 21Q. And the author of the article got that correct because she wrote that you have a sister Eileen? A. Yes, I do have a sister Eileen. Q, And at the time she worked at the U.S. Department of Labor? A.No. It would be Puerto Rico Department of Labor, Q. Okay. A. So she got that wrong. Q. Well, Puerto Rico is in the United States, correct? A. Yes. But there’s a difference between the U.S. Department of Labor and the Puerto Rico Department of Labor. Q. So all that information regarding you and your biographical background is substantially correct, correct? A. And the trips to Hai Q. So the only thing the -- well, from your perspective that the author got wrong was that you were a Radcliffe Street resident at the time? A. That’s correct, N.T. at 174-179 (emphasis added), Exhibit O-6 was moved into evidence without When Candidate was questioned about whether he called the water company in response to the notation on the water bills for 430 Annsbury Street, ie,, to please call if property was occupied during zero usage, Candidate related: “Those small letters, it’s the first time I’m seeing them now.” N.T. at 200. Finally, Objectors’ Counsel presented Exhibit O-7 which was a White Pages.com listing for Candidate, Candidate’s Counsel objected to the document’s 22admissibility into evidence, and the Court held the objection under advisement. The Court now rules on said objection. “Internet websites and web postings are [] typically inadmissible as hearsay. [U.S.] v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637-38 (7th Cir. 2000).” Southco, Ine. v. Fivetech Tech, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 507, 515 (E.D. Pa. 2013), aff'd mem., 611 F. App’x 681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Furthermore, even website evidence admissible under a hearsay exception requires authentication.” Id. Because there was no authentication of Exhibit 0-7, nor any evidence presented indicating reliability of the information stated therein, it is inadmissible hearsay. Accordingly, Candidate’s objection to Exhibit 0-7’s admissibility is sustained. This Court finds Candidate’s testimony in stark contradiction to undisputed public utility business records, as well as inconsistent within itself. Accordingly, the Court finds Candidate not credible. Candidate’s Evidence Candidate Candidate testified that he opened a clinic in Orlando, Florida about three or four years ago, When questioned with respect to how much time he spends there, Candidate stated: Q. [Candidate’s counsel] And how much time do you have to spend with the Orlando facility? A. [Candidate] I spend as much time in Orlando every time the phone rings, I’m needed, and then I have to fly down and stay there for awhile [sic]. Q. Well, let’s try to put some numbers on this, About how many times a year are you in Orlando? A. Oh, possibly five, six times a year, 23N. Q And when you're in Orlando, approximately how much time do you spend while you're there? A. I could spend ~- we don’t go for three days, I go, and 1 can spend anywhere from three weeks ~ two weeks to four weeks, depending on what needs to be done with clinical facilities. at 210-211, In addition, Candidate explained that his 29-year-old son lives in Orlando, and he stays with his son when he is in Florida. With respect to where he calls home, Candidate explained: Q. What do you consider to be your home? A. 430 West Annsbury Street, Philadelphia. Q. And why is that? A. Well, because I first came here to go to Temple. Lara was born at 430 West Annsbury Street, so it’s very dear to me. As a matter of fact, you may have seen some photographs of children’s characters on the wall in the bedroom. That was done for her. After graduate school, I also spent my time -- I gravitated towards a Hispanic community, 430 West Annsbury is smack in the middle of it, zip code 40. T’ve often considered that culturally sensitive, very in keeping with myself, Q. And talk to me about the neighborhood then. What do you mean by sort of culturally sensitive and keeping with yourself? A. Well, 430 West Annsbury Street, that’s, by the way, a corner from [sic] a very famous Latin restaurant called Tierra Colombiana, It’s culturally African American, but mostly Hispanic, and the Hispanics are Puerto Rican, and that’s the neighborhood. It’s a poor neighborhood, but we have managed to be there all those years. 24N.T. at 212-213, Candidate again described how often he is at 430 West Annsbury Street. He expressly testified: A. I’m at Annsbury every day. Again, if you walk out my gated poreh, which I had to do that several years ago for robberies, I put a gated porch there, you turn to the left, you walk several paces, and you’re at my clinic, so, yes. And it’s the high intense clinic, It’s the clinic that has 1,300 patients, It has a lot of activity. A lot of staffers work there. We hire people from the neighborhood. ‘They go there, All of my clerical support lives in these neighborhoods. And it’s a very high intense time, It is open six days a week. Q. Okay. So when do you have time to be at Annsbury? A. I leave at night, Normally we close 7:00, 7:30, 8 o'clock, and that’s when I go to Annsbury. And then the clinics open at 7:30 in the morning the following -- the next day. Q. Okay, And are you at Annsbury during the day? A. Absolutely. I go — every day my lunch is at Annsbury. Q Okay. So you prepare lunch for yourself at Annsbury? : A. That’s correct. Unless the pharmaceutical -- people familiar with the business know that every now and then the pharmaceuticals will bring you inch or dinner to your conference room. Q. Do you have a refrigerator at Annsbury? A. Yes, I do, Q. Do you regularly keep it filled with groceries? A. Yes. 25N.T, at 214-216 (emphasis added). Candidate reported that he had a clinic in Puerto Rico which closed a year and a half ago. However, he still spends time there, In particular, he expounded: Q. Do you still spend time in Puerto Rico? A. Well, yes. My family is there. Q. Who in your family is still there? A. My sister, my nephews, my uncles. Q. And how often do you visit them? A. It could be three times in one year. I was just there now on Thanksgiving, Q. And how long do you spend when you’re there? A. When I’m there, I [sic] could be two or three weeks. Q. Okay. And do you own a home in Puerto Rico? A. Ido not. Q. Do you rent an apartment or any other residential facility in Puerto Rico? A. Ido not. Q. So where do you stay when you're there? A. Atmy mother’s home. Q. But you said your mother has passed on? A. That’s correct. The house is still there. The furniture’s still there, Everything is still there. N.T. at 216-217, Candidate’s Counsel marked for identification Exhibit C-1, which consisted of color photographs of Candidate’s current and two prior driver’s 26licenses as well as an expired permit to carry firearms, wherein, Candidate's address was listed as 430 West Annsbury Street. Next, Candidate’s Counsel marked for identification Exhibit C-2, which Candidate identified as photographs of the inside of 430 West Annsbury Street, When testifying regarding the photograph of the kitchen, Candidate noted: However, notice that on the door sill [sic] there, there is some writing, Again, I kept that for sentimental reasons. As [my daughter] was growing up, I would measure her height and the date in which I took that measurement of hers until she got too grown up to want to be there with me. NT. at 224 (emphasis added). Candidate's counsel marked for identification Exhibit C-3, Candidate's 2016 W-2, which listed Candidate’s address as 430 West Annsbury Street, Candidate’s Counsel next marked for identification Exhibit C-4, Candidate's Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Child Abuse History Clearance, double-sided; and Candidate’s Department of Public Welfare, Criminal Background Check, which listed Candidate’s address as 430 West Annsbury Street. With respect to the Child Abuse Clearance contained in Exhibit C-4, Objectors’ Counsel inquired of Candidate: Q [Objectors’ Counsel] What’s your date of birth[?] A, [Candidate] ‘There has always been a mixup between “47 and ‘57. Q. [Candidate], what’s your date of birth? ‘A. My real date of birth is “57. Q.1957[7] 27A. Yes. My father made a big mistake in those days in Puerto Rico, I was told by my mother. Q. So you were born in 1957? A. Yes, Q. Again, then I’m going to refer you to the -- and again, apologize, the exhibit with the driver’s license on it? A. Yes. Q. So you were born in 1957[?] A. I was born in ‘37, My father registered me wrong and since school days, they want to use 47, so I use “47. Q. So on your Pennsylvania Driver's License, which is Exhibit [C]-1 in front of you? A. Let me look. (Reviewing documents.) Yes. Q. On three successive driver’s licenses, the one you got in 2011 -- excuse me, 2008, 2011, 2015, you knowingly listed your birthdate wrong as 1947? A. No. That was my birth registration date ‘47, that my father dated wrong in Puerto Rico back in the day, that was the case, but that is my birthdate. Q. The 19479 A. Yes. Q. But a few minutes ago, you said your birthdate was 1957? A. Because my father registered me with the wrong date with my birthdate as “47, Q. Okay. But when I asked you about the child support clearance, which is in front of you as Exhibit [C]-4 28A. Child support clearance? Child abuse. Q. The Child Abuse Clearance, and I asked you about your birthdate then, you said you were born in 1957? A. My father registered me wrong. I was born in ‘47 in Puerto Rico, Q. So why did you list 1957 on your Child Abuse Clearance on Exhibit [C]-4? A. Well, this must have been a typo at the office or something. It has come up periodically, but *47 is the date. And they go by social security number, et cetera, to verify that it is indeed me, Q, So if your driver’s license indicates 1947, where did your father register you wrong? Why did your father register you wrong? A. I think he registered me wrong with ‘57 way back on the island. Q. So your birth certificate indicates 1957? A. The first birth certificate indicates ‘57, the second one says ‘47, Q So do you use those two dates of birth interchangeably? A. No, ‘47, Q. Except on the Child Abuse Clearance? A. Except that maybe this was a typo or something from the office and it said ‘S7 as opposed to ‘47, but again they go back on the ~ they go by my social secutity number, Q Well, sit, can you clarify. Was it a typo or was it a reference to the wrong date that your father used? 29A, Frankly, I don’t know whether it was a typo or the wrong reference to the original date. When they went back and they noticed a mistake, they registered me on the island with ‘47, And it’s been ‘47 ever since. Including my tax return, et cetera, Q. What about your tax return? A. They say ~ they reflect ‘47, Q. Why do you put your birthdate on the tax return? A.No, Everything says ‘47, Q. But you don’t put your birthdate on your tax return. Do you? A.No, They go by my social security number, N.T. at 249-252 (emphasis added), Candidate’s Counsel also marked for identification Exhibits C-5,’8 C- 6° C-7," C-8," C-9," C-10, C-11," C-12,* and C-13," all of which identify Candidate’s address as 430 West Annsbury Street, Exhibits C-1 through C-13 were moved into evidence without objection, Candidate’s Counsel next marked for identification Exhibit C-14, which was a cover page to the Deed for 430 West Annsbury Street and Objectors’ Counsel objected to its admissibility into evidence because it was not the entire * Exhibit C-5 is Candidate's 2015 1040 tax return (2 pages). ® Byhibit C-6 is Candidate’s 2015 tax preparer’s bill, °° Exhibit C-7 is Candidate’s Collection Statement from GRB Law for Candidate's past due taxes, and the payment check, 5! Exhibit C-8 is Candidate’s 2017 real estate tax bill. * Exhibit C-9 is Candidate’s 2016 IRS Notice. * Exhibit C-10 is Candidate’s 1095-B health coverage form. *4 Exhibit C-11 is Candidate's 2016 treasury statement. °° Exhibit C-12 is Candidate’s January 2017 Wells Fargo checking account statement, * Exhibit C-13 is Candidate's 2017 Vanguard reminder. 30Deed. Candidate’s Counsel argued that the cover page identifies the location of the property that was deeded and to whom it was deeded. Candidate’s Counsel maintained that it supported Candidate’s testimony that he bought the property in 1988, The Court took the objection under advisement. After reviewing Exhibit C- 14, this Court concludes that it is admissible for the limited purpose of showing Candidate purchased 430 West Annsbury Street in 1988. Thus, the objection is overruled. Candidate’s Counsel next marked for identification Exhibit C-15, a 2013 invoice from Diaz to Candidate, which was accepted into evidence without objection. Thereafter, Candidate’s Counsel marked for identification Exhibit C-16, the first page of a December 2016 Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) statement for 430 West Annsbury Street. Objectors’ Counsel objected to its admissibility into evidence because it was page one of three and, thus, was incomplete. Candidate’s Counsel rejoined that the document being incomplete goes to the weight to be given, rather than its admissibility. The Court took the objection under advisement and now rules. A party’s “general complaint that [a document is] incomplete and inaccurate are matters going to the weight of this evidence and not its admissibility.” Matador Drilling Co. v. Post, 662 F.2d 1190, 1199 (Sth Cir. 1981), Accordingly, the objection is overruled and Exhibit C-16 is admitted into evidence. Finally, Candidate’s Counsel marked for identification Exhibit C-17, two Time magazine covers addressed to Candidate at 430 West Annsbury Street. This Exhibit was moved into evidence without objection. Candidate again reiterated that he considers 430 West Annsbury Street his home. Particularly, he testified: Q. [Candidate’s Counsel] Where do you call home? 31A, [Candidate] 430 West Annsbury Street, All my mail goes there, If it’s professional mail, it goes to the corner, which is 4519 North Sth Street. Q. Why do you cail it home? A. I call it home because I’ve lived there all these years. My daughter, Lara, was born there. My relatives would visit there. My mother when she was alive would visit there. As I said earlier, [sic] know the neighborhood. Unfortunately, a lot of my neighbors by coincidence passed away fairly recently. One who did my fence in the back, passed away two years ago; his son Papalote, in Spanish, he was the block captain, he passed away just a year ago, The neighbors in front of me, her husband died so she moved away. But it’s a changing neighborhood, and, you know, new people are coming in. There was a witness this morning who said she’s been there a couple of months, so, But I’ve been there all that time. It is home. And that’s where it is. NT, at 244 (emphasis added), Candidate also repeated the reason his daughter does not live at 430 West Annsbury Street, Expressly, he described: Q. Okay. And as you said before, your daughter had safety issues with regards to coming back to Annsbury? A. Yes. When she was a child, it was not an issue. As she grew older and she got into her teenage years, I noticed she had a hard time letting me know that she’d rather not be there. And then with the incident that happened a couple years ago, with the raid, which she witnessed because it so happened by back [sic] bad luck they were coming up the concrete steps of Annsbury. That’s when I put the gate up. She really had a traumatic experience with that. And I thought it was best being in the business that I’m in, no, I’m not going to expose her to my neighborhoods. N.T. at 245 (emphasis added), 32This Court finds Candidate’s testimony not credible. In making its credibility determination this Court considered Exhibit C-4, Candidate’s Child Abuse Clearance which lists Candidate’s birthdate as “6/15/1957.” Exhibit C-4 (emphasis added). However, Candidate’s Exhibit C-1, specifically Candidate’s driver’s licenses issued in 2008, 2011 and 2015 recorded Candidate’s birth date as “06/15/1947.” Exhibit C-1 (emphasis added). When questioned by Objectors’ Counsel regarding the discrepancy, Candidate testified: “My real date of birth is “57.” N.T. at 249 (emphasis added). Though, when further questioned, Candidate stated: “I was born in ‘47.” N.T. at 251 (emphasis added), Frankly, this Court still does not have a clear understanding of why Candidate uses two different birth dates or which one is accurate even after Candidate’s lengthy, dubious explanation. See N.T. at 249-252, Further, this Court finds Candidate’s explanation as to why his daughter does not visit him at 430 West Annsbury Street to be inconsistent. The first time Candidate was questioned by Objectors’ Counsel with respect to this topic, Candidate explained that he began living at 8875 Ridge Avenue about “two to three years ago, because [his daughter] was of an age where she was now hesitant to come to 430 West Annsbury [Street].” N.T. at 163-164. When Candidate’s Counsel subsequently questioned him, Candidate gave another explanation: Look, there was an incident there when Lara was, like, 14, It was in the newspapers, also. The house -- two doors away a house was raided by the police looking for drugs. My house on Annsbury Street and my neighborhood is not exactly Chestnut Hill. And Lara was coming in with me at the time, and she saw this, She was very upset, ‘This had been corroborated in the newspapers at the time because it turned out to be a false 33DEA arrest of people, which had been widely circulated in the newspapers, At the time she was very upset, She went back to her mother. And we thought it was wise for her no longer -- especially now entering her middle teenage years -- for her not to be at Annsbury with me. So we decided, fine, V'll take an apartment very close to Lara, and Lara spends time with me. N.T, at 186-187. Finally, when Candidate’s Counsel inquired of the photographs marked as Exhibit C-2, Candidate testified that his daughter did not want to be at 430 West Annsbury Street because “she got too grown up to want to be there with me.” N.T. at 224, Mannix Ortiz Diaz Diaz testified through a certified translator that he lives at 516 West Lycoming Street in Philadelphia. He reported that although he is staying there, he does not have a permanent home and, thus, he uses 430 West Annsbury Street as his address. Specifically, Diaz explained: A. [Diaz] I have my correspondence there, [Candidate] is the one who gives it to me, Q. [Candidate’s counsel] So you're saying you have your mail sent there? A. That's correct. Q. And why is that? A, Because ever since I was left without a home, I knew him and I asked him if I could get my mail there. Q. And where do you live now? A. In Philadelphia. 34Q. Do you have a permanent home in Philadelphia now? A.No, I don’t. Q So where do you stay from night to night? A. Right now I’m in this house with somebody. Q. And when you say ‘in this house,’ what location are we talking about? A. 516 Lycoming. Q. Are you registered to vote? A. Yes. Q. And do you know at what address you're registered to vote? A. Yes, 430 West Annsbury [Street]. Q. And why is that? A. | said that before, because when I didn’t have a home, that's where I was receiving my mail. And my license is still there. Q. What license? A. My driver's license. NIT. at 263-264 (emphasis added), Whin questioned by Objectors’ Counsel, Diaz reported: Q. [Objectors’ Counsel] Did you ever actually live at the 430 West Annsbury Street property? A. [Diaz] It could have been a week or several days while I got myself together. Q. And when was that?A. It could have been three years ago. I don’t remember exactly. NT. at 266 (emphasis added), With respect to how recently he has done repairs at 430 West Annsbury Street, Diaz stated: Q. [Candidate’s Counsel] How often are you working at [430 West Annsbury Street]? A. [Diaz] Not recently, not lately, I haven't done anything in the house recently. Q. And when you say, ‘recently,’ do you mean not in the past few weeks? Not in the past few months? Or even longer? A. In the last months, N.T. at 264-265 (emphasis added), When Objectors’ Counsel inquired further, Diaz reported: Q. [Objectors’ Counsel] And in the past month, have you done any repairs at the house? A. [Diaz] No, just last month not that I remember, no. Q. How about in the last six months? A. I think I did something perhaps in September, I think I did something there. N.T. at 268. This Court finds Diaz credible. This Court notes that Candidate contradicted Diaz, his own witness, when he testified that Diaz repaired the concrete steps at 430 West Annsbury Street the week before last. See N.T. at 162. 36Arturo Cortez Gusman and Angel Lozada Arturo Cortez Gusman (Gusman) testified through a certified translator that he has been working for Candidate at 430 West Annsbury Street for ten to twelve years, Specifically, he reported that, in the last year, he has done flooring and painting at 430 West Annsbury Street, Angel Lozada (Lozada) testified that he is the Committeeman and the Chairman of the 49th ward and a Committeeman for the first division, He stated that he has known Candidate since 1988 and he sees Candidate when he, Lozada, drives around the neighborhood. This Court finds both witnesses credible. Rafael Collazo Finally, Candidate presented Rafael Collazo (Collazo) who testified that he met Candidate approximately five years ago. Callazo related that he has been to 430 West Annsbury Street, and believes Candidate lives there, However, when Objectors’ Counsel inquired further, Collazo explained: Q. [Objectors’ Counsel] Does [Candidate] ever stay anywhere else overnight other than the Annsbury Street A. [Collazo] You have to ask [Candidate]. Q. Okay, Well, do you know? A.No, [M]a’am. Q. So to your knowledge he -- where do you believe he sleeps most nights? A. I don’t know and frankly I don’t care. That’s not my business. Q. So do you know where he sleeps on the weekends? 37A, No. Q. Do you know where he sleeps on the weeknights? A. No, Q So do you have any personal knowledge whatsoever that he actually sleeps at the Annsbury Street residence? A. No. N.T. at 289-290 (emphasis added). This Court finds Collazo credible. Factual Findings and Legal Analysis of Objectors’ Case In the instant case, Candidate swore in his affidavit that he resides at 430 West Annsbury Street. The law presumes this information to be true, until Objectors show: (1) that Candidate has a physical presence at a new residence; and, (2) the “actual state of facts” that this new location is intended to be Candidate’s new residence, Hanssens, 821 A.2d at 1251. Although Candidate does not have the burden of proof, he was subpoenaed to testify as part of Objectors’ direct case. Thus, his testimony and credibility determination are directly relevant to the actual state of the facts as to where he is domiciled. With respect to the first requirement, during Objector’s case, Candidate’s testimony disclosed: 1. For the past two or three years Candidate has lived at 8875 Ridge Avenue, 2, Candidate acquired 8875 Ridge Avenue because his daughter would not visit him at 430 West Annsbury Street which is the former family home. 383. Candidate and his daughter each have a bedroom at 8875 Ridge Avenue. 4, Candidate sleeps at 8875 Ridge Avenue Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights as well as other nights, including the night before the hearing, which was a Tuesday, 5. Candidate does his laundry at 8875 Ridge Avenue. 6, The electric account for 8875 Ridge Avenue is in Candidate’s name and Candidate is responsible for the same. Based upon the record evidence, this Court concludes that Objectors have established Candidate has “a physical presence” at 8875 Ridge Avenue. Hanssens, 821 A.2d at 1251. Relative to the second element, the “actual state of facts” as it relates to Candidate's intent to change his domicile from 430 West Annsbury Street to 8875 Ridge Avenue, Hanssens, 821 A.2d at 1251, this Court makes the following findings: 1, Although Candidate testified that he is at 430 West Annsbury Street “every day” and flushes the toilet daily, plus washes dishes twice a week and showers three to four times a week, the water bills for 430 West Annsbury Street reveal 0 CCF of water usage for seven of the last eleven months. However, based on Objectors’ evidence, flushing the toilet once a day, seven days a week, would use approximately 180 to 225 gallons of water per month, totaling minimum water usage of 1,260 to 1,575 gallons of water for seven months, which is well in excess, of 1 CCF of water usage, with no other water usage.’” Based on Candidate’s own testimony, Candidate 57 Flushing the toilet 7 days @ week in a month uses approximately 180 (6 x 30) to 225 (7.5 x 30) gallons of water. Flushing the toilet 7 days a weeks for 7 months would requite approximately 1,260 (6 x 210) to 1,575 (7.5 x 210) gallons of water. 39would have used a minimum of 1,260 to 1,575 gallons of water during a seven-month period. This calculation does not include the water usage required for the showers he testified he took three to four times a week, the dishes he claimed to have washed twice a week and the water Diaz purportedly used."® 2. The water bills for the-remaining four months show the approximate gallons of water used per day during those months as: 28, 21, 24 and 22 respectively. Williams’ credible testimony that flushing a toilet three to four times alone (no showering or washing of dishes) could result in that much water usage makes Candidate’s representation that he is living at 430 West Annsbury Street even more incredulous considering the water usage for all cleven months totals merely 4 CCFs. 3. Candidate's water usage of only 4 CCPs in eleven months is in stark contrast to Williams’ testimony that he, as a single person, uses 2 to 3 CCFs per month totaling between 22 and 33 CCFs in eleven months. 4, Candidate’s claims of how he uses 430 West Annsbury Street as his residence are completely dispelled by the undisputed public utility water bills. 5. The PECO account summary for 430 West Annsbury Street revealed minimal kilowatt usage. However, Candidate testified that he spends more time at 430 West Annsbury Street than 8875 Ridge Avenue, prepares lunch for himself “every day” at 430 West Annsbury Street (except for when the pharmaceutical companies supply it), he arrives there after work at about 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., sleeps there two or three nights a week, and has a workman there three times a week. Moreover, Cruz testified that the bedroom light is always on. 6, The PECO account summaries show that between March 2016 and January 2017, Candidate’s monthly °8 See Ex, O-2 (wherein the water usage for seven out of eleven months registered 0 CCF per month and the remaining four months registered 1 CCF per month), 40electric use at 430 West Annsbury Street ranged between 76 KWH and 143 KWH, totaling 1,137 KWH during those 11 months, 7. In contrast, between March 2016 and January 2017, the PECO account summaries revealed that Candidate’s monthly electric use at 8875 Ridge Avenue ranged between 341 KWH and 860 KWH, totaling 5,601 KWH during those 11 months. 8. During March, April and May 2016, Candidate consistently used electricity at 430 West Annsbury Street in minimal amounts; 83 KWH in March, 89 KWH in April and 88 KWH in May. 9. During those same months, Candidate used significantly more electricity at 8875 Ridge Avenue: 580 KWH in March, 586 KWH in April and 342 KWH in May. 10. From June through September 2016, Candidate’s electric use at 430 West Annsbury Street rose only slightly: 135 KWH in June, 115 KWH in July, 114 KWH in August and 143 KWH in September. 11. Comparably, at 8875 Ridge Avenue, Candidate used 341 KWH in June, 474 KWH in July, 367 KWH in ‘August and 417 KWH for September. 12. The kilowatt usage for 8875 Ridge Avenue is three to five times higher than the kilowatt usage for 430 West Annsbury Street. Although 8875 Ridge Avenue is all electric, Candidate described 8875 Ridge Avenue as a “little townhouse,” N.T at 163, and 430 West Annsbury Street as a “complete house.” N.T. at 196. Candidate also testified that he spends more time at 430 West Annsbury Street than 8875 Ridge Avenue because he is at 430 West Annsbury Street every day. 13. A review of the electricity usage comparison chart shows that Candidate’s electricity usage was three to five times lower at the “complete house” that he uses “every day[,]” than the “little townhouse” he purportedly only 41frequents on weekends. N.T. at 196, 163. Importantly, Candidate attempted to explain the low kilowatt hours used at 430 West Annsbury Street by stating that he could have been in Florida “which [he] always go[es] to” or Puerto Rico at the time, ie., between January 2015 and January 2017, N.T. at 185. However, while that would explain a low usage at 430 West Annsbury Street, it would not explain the high usage at 8875 Ridge Avenue, 14. Candidate remarked that 430 West Annsbury Street is “not exactly Chestnut Hill,” although he made no similar statement regarding 8875 Ridge Avenue, N.T. at 187. 8875 Ridge Avenue is located in the section of Philadelphia which abuts Chestnut Hill”? Candidate farther stated that 430 West Annsbury Street is “a poor neighborhood, but we have managed to be there all those years” NT, at 213, 430 West Annsbury Street is “a gated place. 430 West Annsbury [Street] has a gate.” N.T. at 163. Candidate testified ‘that he stayed at 8875 Ridge Avenue the night before the hearing because he “didn’t want people coming up to the gate.” Jd, 15. Candidate is the founder and President of Pan American Mental Health Services. His office and Candidate’s busiest clinic are located at 4519 North Sth Street, “30 paces” from 430 West Annsbury Street. N.T. at 161, The clinic opens at 7:30 a.m. 16. The clinic stores its files and supplies in the basement of 430 West Annsbury Street. % Black's Law Dictionary defines “judicial notice” as “[a] court's acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof,” of certain facts, Black's Law Dictionary, 923 (9th ed. 2009). Pa.R.E, 201(b) authorizes this Court to sua sponte take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Pa.R.E, 201, 4217. When asked by Objectors’ Counsel: “So you're often in that neighborhood then because you work there?” Candidate replied: “Every day, six days a week.” N.T. at 161, 18. Pan American Mental Health Services has a large clinic in Bristol, Pennsylvania. 19, Candidate’s girlfriend lives in Bristol at 1032 Radcliff Street. Candidate spends one or two nights a week at 1032 Radcliff Street when he needs to be at Lower Bucks Hospital or the Bristol clinic, 20. Cruz testified that she is astutely aware of her surroundings due to having been shot and she lives directly across the street from 430 West Annsbury Street. She further stated that despite always staring out her window, she has never seen Candidate enter or exit 430 West Annsbury Street, Cruz also reported that 430 West Annsbury Street is the only house on the block that does not havea trash can out for pick-up. 21. Quintella testified that she lives across the street from 430 West Annsbury Street and, although she has seen Candidate in the neighborhood, she has never seen him enter or exit 430 West Annsbury Street. 22. Candidate testified that his daughter is at 8875 Ridge Avenue only on the weekends when he is there, Later he stated that his daughter goes in and out of 8875 Ridge Avenue at other times as well. Legal Determination - Objectors’ Case Neighbors of 430 West Annsbury Street believe no one resides at this property, They base this belief on several facts: (1) with the exception of two visits by two different men (who were -not Candidate), the neighbors have never seen anyone enter or leave the property; (2) the bedroom light is continuously 43burning; and, (3) it is the only property on the block that never puts out a trash can on garbage day. The public utility water and electric accounts support the neighbors? belief in that the accounts reveal minimal water and electric usage at 430 West Annsbury Street. In particular, the water bills for seven out of eleven of the relevant months reveal 0 CCF water usage and only 1 CCF in each of the remaining four months. When Candidate was given an opportunity to explain these public utility accounts, he provided answers in complete derogation of undisputed public utility business records. Candidate established a home with his minor daughter at 8875 Ridge Avenue before the relevant time period because his daughter was afraid and/or isit him at 430 West Annsbury Street, and he wanted to maintain a relationship with her. His daughter is comfortable at 8875 Ridge Avenue, has a bedroom there and freely goes in and out of the home. The Candidate remarked that 430 West Annsbury Street is “not exactly Chestnut Hill,” but he “managed to be there all those years,” clearly communicating that 430 West Annsbury Street is not as desirable a location as Chestnut Hill. N.T. at 187, 213. In fact, 8875 Ridge Avenue is located in a community very close to Chestnut Hill. In contrast, Candidate testified that 430 West Annsbury Street is secured, i.e., gated. Further, Candidate spends at least three nights a week at 8875 Ridge Avenue, is the named account-holder for electrical service, and does his laundry at 8875 Ridge Avenue. Moreover, one or two nights a week, when Candidate needs to be at his Bristol clinic or Lower Bucks Hospital first thing in the morning, Candidate stays overnight at his girlfriend’s home in Bristol. Candidate will be opening another Bristol clinic on the same street as his girlfriend’s home. Similarly, 44Candidate goes to 430 West Annsbury every day because it is 30 paces from his busiest clinic which is also the location of his office. In addition, the clinic keeps files and supplies at 430 West Annsbury Street. Candidate stays at 430 West Annsbury Street possibly two or three nights a week, since his clinic opens at 7:30 a.m, and he works until approximately 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. Based on Objectors’ evidence and inferences reasonably deduced therefrom, Candidate’s physical presonce and the actual state of facts demonstrate that 8875 Ridge Avenue became Candidate’s new domicile. It is the location where Candidate spent most of his nights, and to which he returned to be with his family, ‘This Court reasonably infers that the purpose for Candidate continuously leaving a bedroom light buming at 430 West Annsbury Street was to create the appearance that he resided therein, Similarly, Candidate, through his testimony, sought to create an appearance that he is domiciled at 430 West Annsbury Street, however, offered an explanation of his public utility usage that defies the undisputed public utility business records. Moreover, based on the evidence, it is clear that, similar to his visits to his girlftiend’s home, his visits to 430 West Annsbury Street are due solely to the location’s proximity to his busiest clinic. As our Supreme Court has held: It seems impossible to restrict the terms habitation, residence and domicile to airtight, waterproof compartments. Their meanings seem bound to escape their lexicographical boundaries and mingle with the others since a person’s place of residence may be identical with his domicile, and habitation i{s| always a component part of residence and domicile. However, in strict technical terminology a habitation may be defined as an abode for the moment, residence a tamying place for some specific purpose of business or pleasure, and domicile the fixed, permanent, final home to which one always intends to return, A person’s civil status is 45determined by his domicile, Thus a business man may have his family home in the suburbs of a city where he lives with his wife and children. No matter where he travels nor how long he remains away, he always returns to this abode. This is his domicile. For business reasons he may have a residence in the city, even living there for many months of the year, This residence can never become the basis for voting or for candidacy for office. If travelling, he may stay at a hotel, boarding or rooming house. This would be his habitation and, regardless of expression of intention, could never become his legal domicile. In re Lesker, 105 A.2d 376, 380 (Pa. 1954) (bold emphasis added). Because this Court concludes that Objectors have met their burden of showing that Candidate is not domiciled at 430 West Annsbury Street, but rather at 8875 Ridge Avenue, the burden shifts to Candidate to rebut this evidence. See Hanssens. Accordingly, we will now review Candidate’s evidence, to determine if he proved that he was a resident of 430 West Annsbury Street for the year preceding the special election, Legal Analysis and Determination of Candidate’s Case Candidate introduced 14 exhibits ranging in date from June 2011 to February 2017 for the purpose of showing that the documents were addressed to Candidate at 430 West Annsbury Street. See C-1, C-3--C-13, C-16-C-17. However, “merely [using] an address [does] not create a residence for purposes of election law: a post office box or a mail drop does not become a residence. Rather, a person must inhabit the place of residence.” Shimkus, 946 A.2d at 150 (emphasis added), This fact is especially true here, where Diaz, like Candidate, not only uses 430 West Annsbury Street as his mailing address, he registered to vote stating that 430 West Annsbury Street is his residence, and he has voted the last three 46years declaring the same, as well as he listed 430 West Annsbury Sireet on his driver's license, See N.T, at 90, 263-264. Notwithstanding, Diaz testified that he has not resided at 430 West Annsbury Street for the last two to three years, This Court notes that although Candidate and Diaz testified that Diaz lived at 430 West Annsbury Street two to three years ago, Diaz stated that it was only for “a week or several days,” yet Diaz continues to use 430 West Annsbury Street as his residence. N.T, at 266. Similarly, notwithstanding that at one time Candidate lived at 430 West Annsbury Street, be has not been domiciled there since at least March 2016, yet Candidate continues to use that address as his residence, Candidate introduced Exhibit C-2, photographs of the inside of 430 West Annsbury Street, for the purpose of showing he resided there. However, the fact that there are clothes strewn on the bed and minimal food in the refrigerator merely supports his testimony that he works at the clinic and goes there for lunch. See NT, at 278. The fact that there are no photographs or pictures on the walls, combined with the fact that his daughter’s room is still decorated for an infant, more strongly reveals that Candidate is not domiciled at 430 West Annsbury Street, but merely uses that location as a convenient place to stay when he works at his busiest clinic. Candidate testified that he visits Florida five to six times a year and could spend up to a month at a time when there. See N.T. at 211, Candidate also reported that he visits Puerto Rico approximately two to three times a year and could stay there two to three weeks at a time. See N.T. at 216-217. Finally, Candidate explained why he calls 430 West Annsbury Street his home: (1) all of his mail goes there; (2) his daughter was born there (17 years ago), see N.T. at 163; 47(3) his mother would visit there before she passed away (in 2013), see N.T. at 217; and, (4) he knows the neighborhood. See N.T. at 244. Domicile is based on one’s “present intention.” Publicker’s Estate, 123 A.2d at 658 (emphasis added). Candidate's testimony unequivocally reveals that when he answered why 430 West Annsbury Street is his home, apart from him stating he receives his mail at that location, his responses were based solely on the past, nothing in the present. Candidate is required to rebut Objectors’ evidence and show that he has been domiciled at 430 West Annsbury Street since March 21, 2016. See Hanssens. A mailing address and memories do not translate to inhabiting a residence. Shimkus. In fact, Candidate’s testimony that he can be out of the state to take care of his business operations or for personal reasons between seven to nine months of the year, buttresses Objectors’ evidence, i.e., the water and electric accounts, and the Courts findings, which show that Candidate has not continuously lived in the 197" Legislative District in the past year as the Pennsylvania Constitution mandates. Moreover, Candidate’s consistent minimal electric consumption at 430 West Annsbury Street does not reflect a decrease in use for periods of Candidate's absences due to trips to Orlando (5 or 6 times per year for 2 to 4 weeks) and Puerto Rico (3 visits per year for 2 to 3 weeks), but rather supports Objectors’ position that Candidate does not reside at 430 West Annsbury Street, since his absences resulting from travel has virtually no effect on utility consumption. Thus, even if this Court were to find Candidate credible, his own testimony fails to rebut Objectors’ evidence. This Court notes that although Candidate maintains that he resides at 430 West Annsbury Street, he did not present one neighbor to testify on his behalf. Further, Candidate’s witnesses, two handymen, a Committeeman and a doctor who 48testified that he has no personal knowledge as to where Candidate sleeps at night, could not offer any definitive evidence that Candidate has continuously inhabited 430 West Annsbury Street since March 21, 2016. See N.T. at 290. In addition, Candidate claimed that “[a] lot of staffers work [at his clinic that is steps away from 430 West Annsbury Street}.” N.T. at 215. Specifically, he explained: “We hire people from the neighborhood. They go there. All of my clerical support lives in these neighborhoods.” Jd. Yet, Candidate did not present one “staffer{]” to testify that he has resided 30 paces away from the clinic. N.T. at 215 Based solely upon Candidate’s credible evidence, this Court holds that he has not rebutted Objectors’ evidence by proving that he resided at 430 West Annsbury Street since March 21, 2016, Further, because Objectors have proven that Candidate’s residency statement is intentionally false, the Party’s Nomination Certificate is invalid. See Hanssens. Accordingly, the Objection Petition is granted, and Candidate’s name shall be’ removed from the March 21, 2017 special election ballot. Anse ( ANNE E. COVEY, Jui é 49IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Nomination Certificate Of Frederick Ramirez Candidate For Representative in the General Assembly - 197th Legislative District Petition of: James Hines, : Melinda Riggs, Troy Bouie : No. 44MD, 2017 and Diep Nguyen : Heard: February 8, 2017 ORDER AND NOW, this 23" day of February, 2017, following a hearing on the petition to set aside the Nomination Certificate of Frederick Ramirez (Candidate) filed by James Hines, Melinda Riggs, Troy Bouie and Diep Nguyen, it is hereby ORDERED: 1, The petition to set aside Candidate’s Nomination Certificate is hereby GRANTED. N . The Secretary of the Commonwealth is directed to remove the name of Frederick Ramirez, Candidate for State Representative in the 197" Legislative District, from the March 21, 2017 special election ballot. 3. The Chief Clerk shall notify the parties hereto and their counsel of this Order and also certify a copy hereof to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. ANNE E. COVEY, Jud Certified irom the Record FEB 28 2017 ‘And Order Exit