STATE OF MINNESOTA ’ IN SUPREME COURT Court File No. A16-1252 ‘Tamara Monaghen, Petitioner, AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT vs. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondent, —esSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS—— Petitioner has filed a petition pursuant to Minn, Stat. § 2048.44 asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to direct Respondent to remove the name of Robert Barrett from the November 8, 2016 general election ballot for the office of State Representative for Legislative District 32B. P immediately preceding the general election as required by Minn. Const. art. IV, § 6. ioner alleges that candidate Barrett has not resided in District 32B for the six months Ramsey County District Court Judge George T. Stephenson was appointed referee and directed to hold a fact-finding hearing and to make written findings, ‘On August 19, 2016, Ramsey County District Court Judge George T. Stephenson began a fact-finding hearing to determine ail facts relevant to whether candidate Barrett resided at 890 Furuby Road (“Furuby”) in Taylors Falls, Minnesota for the requisite six months immediately preceding the November 8, 2016 general election.Petitioner was represented by attomey Timothy Ryan, Representative Barrett was represented by attorneys R. Reid LeBeau Il and Michael Murphy. Respondent Secretary of State Steve Simon was represented by Nathan J. Hartshorn, Representative Barrett's Motion To Exclude Before the hearing, Mr. Barrett sought to have the court exclude from consideration in this matter photographs and testimony related to photographs by Petitioner Monaghen and those working with her to investigate Mr. Barrett's residency, Mr, Barrett argued that the activities of Ms. Monaghen, Ms. Gerdes, Mr. Kastelein and Me. Rich are proscribed by Minn. Stat. § 609,746 and constitute the crime of Interference with Privacy. The court took the motion under advisement and proceeded with the evidentiary hearing. Minn. Stat. § 609.746, Subd. 1(a) of the statute refers to one who enters another’s property and “surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of @ house or place of dwelling.” Subd.1(b) of the statute refers to one who enters another's property and surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling.” Mr. Barrett specifically points to Petitioner and her agents entering the property at Furuby and looking into windows. He also challenges the admission of photographs obtained by Petitioner after setting up a camera to capture images of individuals and vehicles passing by, tuming onto or tuning from Furuby Road. He argues that this was an illegal invasion of his privacy, ‘The Court has been presented with nothing to suggest that the camera that was set up to surveil the entrance to Furuby was on property being rented by Mr. Barrett, There was no evidence presented to suggest that the camera was trained on the house rented by Mr. Barrett or that it recorded images through Mr. Barrett’s windows. Rather, the photographs were taken from property that appears to be public and by a camera focused on the public road onto which vehicles would tum to get to the rental property on Furuby. Further, Mr, Barrett could notpossibly have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area that was being surveilled by the camera. With respect to the activities by Ms. Monaghen and her agents (entering the property and ooking into windows to discern whether Mr. Barrett resided there), the statute would also not apply under these circumstances. The Court has been presented with no evidence of surreptitious gazing, staring or peeping into the house. Rather, the investigators entered the property and, on most occasions, rang the doorbell and/or knocked on the door. These were not, surreptitious entries to the Furuby property. ‘There was no intent to invade Mr, Barrett"s privacy by surrepsitious intrusion and no evidence that they had been told not to come on to the property Mr. Barrett was renting. Mr. Barrett’s motion to exclude is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT The issue is whether, beginning May 8, 2016, Mr. Barrett resided in District 32B at 890 Furuby Road in Taylors Falls, Minnesota. ‘The parties agree that the burden of proof is on the Petitioner and is something less than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Petitioner asserts that the burden falls somewhere near the “preponderance of evidence” standard; Mr. Barrett asserts that the higher burden of “clear and convincing evidence” is the standard to be borne by the petitioner. Petit foner Monaghen asserts that she has investigated whether Mr. Barrett’s primary residence is at the rental property at Furuby and she has concluded that Mr. Barrett’s primary residence is not at Furuby. She cites, among other things, continued ownership of the home in Shafer; tax records indicating Mr. Barrett's homestead in Shafer; Mr. Barrett's wife’s on-going residency at their home in Shafer; and the lack of any efforts by Mr. and Mrs, Barrett to sell or prepare to sell the Shafer home. Petitioner also suggests that the lower-than-market value rent Mr. Barrett pays for Furuby and the lease that expires before the end of this year are additionalproof of Mr. Barrett not maintaining a residence in District 32B, She further asserts that her Personal observations and the observations of others investigating Mr. Barrett’s residency led her to the conclusion that Mr. Barrett does not reside at Furuby. Similar allegations were made against Mr. Barrett in the 2014 petition by Valerie Mondor challenging Mr. Barrett's residency in District 32B. That petition relied on much of the same kkinds of evidence. And, in that case, Mr. Barrett responded with similar arguments and responses. However, there are crucial differences between the evidence presented in the Mondor hearing and the evidence presented during the Monaghen hearing, ‘The two witnesses supporting Ms. Mondor’s petition had only lived next door to the house Mr, Barrett rented for the first week of the pertinent six-month period during which Mr. Barrett's residency was in question. Accordingly, the witnesses were not in a position to credibly support Ms. Mondor's claim. Further, one of the witnesses admitted that he was not at his former residence (next door to the home Mr. Barrett rented) enough to opine about Mr. Barrett's residency. Also significant in the Mondor case were the efforts Mr. Barrett and his wife had made to fix up their Shafer home in order to prepare it for sale; Mr. Barrett's landlord’s testimony about his first-hand knowledge of Mr. Barrett’s residence at the rented house on Mentzer Trail during the pertinent period; and the testimony of a neighbor on Mentzer Trail who testified in support of Mr. Barrett’s residency in the district. Consequently, the testimony of Ms. Mondor and her ‘witnesses fell short of the preponderance of evidence threshold, This court made clear in its 2014 findings that Mr. Barrett's claim of residency in the district Jacked credibility. Those findings should have made clear that the evidence presented did NOT establish his residency there; that decision was based simply on the weight of evidence establishing residency outside the district not having exceeded the weight of evidence supporting his claim of residency.And so, on August 3, 2016, Tamara Monaghen filed a new petition challenging Mr. Barrett’s residency in Legislative District 32B A. Affidavit and Testimony of Petitioner Tamara Monaghen 1) Petitioner Tamara Monaghen resides in Legislative District 32B in Taylors Falls, Minnesota. 2) Mr. Barrett is the representative for the district in which Petitioner resides. 3) Ms. Monaghen learned that Mr. Barrett claimed his residence as the rented house on 890 Furuby Road in Taylors Fall and decided to investigate the veracity of that claim. 4) Ms. Monaghen visited Furuby several times and at various times of the day between July 20" and August 1%, 5) Ms. Monaghen visited Furuby on July 20 at 6:00pm and again at 8:39pm. During her visits that day, there was no activity observed at the home and there was no answer when she rang the doorbell and knocked on the door. 6) On July 21 she visited Furuby at 5:50am. She saw no lights on in the house and saw a Dodge truck in the driveway. At 6:50 that evening she visited again, rang the doorbell and knocked. She noted the Dodge truck where she had seen it eatlier, She looked in the garage window and noted that there was no car inside. She left a small stick in the front door of the house and placed it in such a way that the stick would fall out if the door opened. 7) On July 23%, she visited Furuby at 8:32am and again at 9:41am. She knocked on the door and rang the doorbell but saw and heard no one. The small stick she’d left two days earlier was still in the door.8) On July 24", Ms. Monaghen visited Furuby at 8:20am and, because of an earlier rain storm, she could see that no one had been there because there were no tracks in the driveway. 9) On July 26", she visited Furuby at 8:20pm. She knocked on the door and rang the doorbell but got no answer. She found campaign literature for DFL candidate Rick ‘Nolan in the door and saw the small stick on the ground. She then went around the house, and found the garage door locked. She looked in the garage window and saw that no car was inside, There were also no lights on in the home. 10) On July 27", she visited Furuby at 8:15am, knocked on the door and rang the doorbell. She saw the Rick Nolan flyers still in the door. No lights were on at the house. 11) On July 29", Ms. Monaghen visited Furuby at 10:07pm and saw no lights on in the house or outside the house. The black Dodge truck was present. 12) On July 31, she visited Furuby at 11:39am. The black Dodge truck was gone but she saw a red Honda parked in the driveway. It was established at the hearing that Mr. Barrett drives a dark red Honda Civic, Ms. Monaghen knocked on the door and rang the doorbell but got no answer. The campaign flyer was in the door but there was writing on it that Mr, Barrett admitted, during the hearing, having put there. 13)Ms. Monaghen’s final visit to Furuby was on August 1I* at 8:37pm, She rang the doorbell and knocked on the door. ‘There was no answer and no lights were on. Ms. Monaghen ‘went to the back of the house and could see into the upstairs dining area, No one was there. 14) After investigating Mr. Barrett's residency, Ms. Monaghen petitioned this challenge to that residency and for Mr. Barrett’s removal from the batlot in November.) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 2 8) . Affidavit and Testimony of Robert Barrett In October of 2015, Mr. Barrett entered a 14-month leasing agreement for the two- bedroom home on Furuby, Mr. Barrett testified that he has resided at Furuby since October although his wife continues to reside in their Shafer home. His Minnesota Driver's License and U.S. Passport Application show Furuby as Mr. Barrett's home address, He has received packages from Amazon.com at Furuby. Mr. Barrett said that his wife may have spent one to three nights per week at Furuby until the spring but, since May, has spent one night or less per week there, Mr. Barrett said that in May his wife began spending Jess time at Furuby. She felt unsafe there because of harassment by “DFL activists”. The actions Mr. Barrett referenced were DEL activists “peeping through windows”, placing DFL literature on the door at Furuby, surveilling the entryway to the Furuby driveway, and knocking on his door to harass him about whether he resided there. Puruby is owned by Loren and Fay Caneday. Mr. Barrett has known Mr. Caneday for several years through Republican political channels. Mr. Caneday donated to his 2014 campaign. Mr. Barrett said he could not recall whether Mr. Caneday donated to his 2016 campaign. Mr. Barrett’s rent is $300 per month and he pays an average of about $30 per month for utilities. The home came sparsely furnished with a sofa, kitchen table and a chair. Mr. Barrett acknowledged that the rent he pays is low for a two-bedroom home.9) Mr. Barrett does not entertain at Furuby; he said he ‘not extroverted”, 10) Furuby does not have internet service; Mr. Barrett said he uses his cell phone as a “hot spot” to access the internet, 11) There is no cable service at Furuby; Mr. Barrett said he does not watch much television, 12) Furuby has no trash pickup service. Mr. Barrett said trash pick-up for that area is on Fridays and he does not like Friday trash pick-ups. 13) There is no washing machine or dryer at Furuby; Mr, Barrett said he does his laundry at Schafer Laundromat. 14) The Furuby lease expires in December of 2016, a little more than one month after the election. 15)Mr. Barrett said he and his wife have no plans to separate or divorce. 16)Mr. Barrett said that, despite his wife not feeling safe there, he is interested in buying Furuby. He has not expressed this interest to the Canedays. He said he wants to wait until the Canedays list the house for sale. He said this will allow him to negotiate the best price and will avoid the Canedays taking advantage of him and demanding a higher price, C. Statement of Loren Caneday 1) Loren Caneday is the owner of Furuby. In his written statement from August 8, 2016, he confirmed renting Furuby to Mr. Barrett and confirmed the term of the lease.2) Mr. Caneday’s statement indicates that he has seen packages and mail for Mr. Barrett, delivered to Furuby, and has witnessed vehicles there that he believes to be driven by Mr. Barrett. 3) Mr. Caneday states that “[bJased on occasional observation I have reason to believe Representative Barrett has been residing in the home at 890 Furuby Road since the beginning of our lease and specifically during the last six months.” [Emphasis added] 4) Mr. Caneday’s statement indicates that he remembers having had two conversations with Mr. Barrett. The first was when Mr. Barrett told him he had moved into Furuby. The second was when Mr. Barrett told Mr. Caneday that he had brought a snow-blower to Furuby. According to Mr. Caneday, both of these conversations were in November of 2015. 5) Mr. Caneday’s statement does not indicate any independent knowledge of Mr. Barrett residing at Furuby during May, June, July or August, or at any other time after November. D. Affidavit and Testimony of Timothy Kastelein 1) In early July of 2016, Petitioner's attorney, Virginia Stark, contacted Mr. Kastelein about setting up a motion-activated camera to conduct surveillance of the entrance to the driveway leading to the property Mr. Barrett rents at Furuby. 2) On July 7,2016, Mr. Kastelein positioned the camera on a tree across the road from the driveway entrance, The camera would capture images of anyone stopping at the mailbox for Furuby and would capture images of anyone and any vehicles turning into or out of the driveway, 3) Mr. Kastelein did not go onto the property at 890 Furuby.4) The camera was programmed to take photos only between 4pm to 10pm each evening. 5) On July 12, Mr. Kastelein retrieved the camera and found the batteries to be completely drained. The camera’s memory card had no photos. He replaced the batteries and the memory card and re-set the camera. 6) On July 19, Mr. Kastclein retrieved the camera and found over 400 photos had been taken, The camera appeared to have been activated by the movement of grass and tree limbs. 7) On July 15%, the Honda Civic which Mr. Kastelein believes was driven by Mr. Barrett ‘was captured in two photographs taken at 9:30 pm. The car appeared to have stopped at the mail box for 890 Furuby. ‘The camera captured no images of the car entering the driveway that night or any other night, 8) On July 22™, the camera was retrieved and the photos reviewed. While images of other vehicles were revealed, there appeared to be no photos of Mr. Barrett’s Honda. Mr. Kastelein set the camera ina slightly different location and retrieved it in the evening on July 28". Upon reviewing, it was clear that the camera angle was poor and a tree limb appeared to have been directly in front of the camera; this caused the camera to focus exclusively on the tree limb. He again re-set the camera. 9) Mr. Kastelein retrieved the camera for the last time on August 1*. During the surveillance, the camera took 841 photos. Only the two at the mailbox appeared to resemble Mr. Barrett’s Honda. E. Affidavit and Testimony of Denise Gerdes 1) Ms. Gerdes visited Furuby four times: July 25" at 7:40pm; July 27" at around 7:25pm; July 29" at about 7:30pm; and on August I*‘at about 7:40pm.2) Ms. Gerdes said she went to Furuby to investigate whether Mr. Barrett lived there and to discuss an employment-related political issue with Mr. Barrett, an issue about which she had written to other elected officials including Governor Dayton 3) On July 25! she left literature supporting the campaign of DFL candidate Rick Nolan “in between the storm doot and the regular door” at Furuby. 4) Ms. Gerdes’ affidavit indicates that when she returned on July 27", the Nolan campaign literature “was stil! where I left it, in the same place, untouched”. 5) When she visited Furuby on July 29", the “Rick Nolan campaign literature was STILL in the door between the storm door and the regular door”; and, on August 1", during her final visit to Furuby, “[tJhe Nolan literature was still in the door.” 6) The absence of any lights on at the house, and the lack of other indications of anyone being present at the house during her visits to Furuby led her to conclude that no one had been at the home during that period. 7) On her last visit to Furuby, Ms. Gerdes noted that the Nolan campaign literature had been moved but was still in the door. She did not notice that Mr. Barrett had written on itand she assumed, incorrectly, that another investigator had moved it. F. Affidavit and Testimony of Patrick Rich 1) Mr. Rich’s affidavit indicates that between early July and August 1*, he visited Furuby more than a dozen times. He visited two times during the 4" of July weekend and one time each on July 14" at 9:15pm, on July 18 at 5:15pm, on July 19" at 9:35pm, on July 20" at 9:45pm, on July 21* at 9:55pm, on July 24" at 9:50pm, on July 26" at 9:44pm, on July 27" at 9:43pm, on July 29 at 9:33pm, on July 31*at 9:51pm, and on August 1 at 9:43pm. .2) During these visits to Furuby, Mr. Rich saw lights on in the house one time but got no response when knocking on the door and ringing the doorbell. 3) During his visits, he looked into the garage and saw no car inside, On most of his visits to Furuby, Mr. Rich noted the presence of only Mr. Barrett’s truck and on two visits the red Honda Civic was present but the black Dodge truck was gone. On none of those visits did Mr. Rich see both vehicles at Furuby. During one of the visits, his car lights illuminated the living room in which he saw no furniture and saw nothing on the living room walls. G. Specific Findings of Fact 1) Mr. Barrett entered a 14-month lease agreement for Furuby with the owners, Loren and Fay Caneday. Mr. Barrett has known Mr. Caneday for many years and knows him through political events and activities. 2) The $300 monthly rent (plus estimated average monthly utilities of $30) for Furuby is indisputably on the low end of the rent spectrum for a two-bedroom home in Taylors Falls. 3) The lease will expire a little more than one month after the November election. 4) The Furuby address is indicated as his residence on Mr. Barrett’s Minnesota Driver's License and on his U.S. Passport Application. 5) Mr. Barrett has received packages ordered from Amazon.com at Furuby. 6) Mr. Barrett and his wife continue to own their home in Shafer. 7) The home is not listed for sale and the Barretts are not making repairs or improvements in order to ready the home for listing it for sale.8) Ms. Barrett resides at the Shafer home. 9) Mr, Barrett said that in May his wife began spending less time at Furuby. She felt unsafe there because of harassment by “DFL. activists”, The actions Mr. Barrett referenced were DFL activists “peeping through windows”, placing DPL literature on the door at Furuby, surveilling the entryway to the Furuby driveway, and knocking on his door to harass him about whether he resided there. However, Ms. Barrett could not have known about, actions of the activists because the investigation of his residency didn’t begin until July and the Petition and affidavits were not available until August. 10) Mr. Barrett does not anticipate a tegal separation or divorce from Ms. Barrett 11) Petitioner Monaghen, Ms. Gerdes and Mr. Rich made thirty visits to Furuby. 12) The visits were spread out among 15 days between the 4" of July weekend and August 1%, 2016. 13) The times of the visits were as early as 5:50am and as late as 10:07pm. 14) During the visits, neither Petitioner nor Ms. Gerdes nor Mr. Rich saw lights on inside or outside Furuby; they saw no cars in the garage; they got no response to the doorbell or to knocking on the door (sometimes loudly); they saw no signs of anyone ever being present. 15) The memory card from the trail camera set up by Mr. Kastelein revealed over 800 photographs. Among those are only two photographs purporting to show Mr. Barrett. Those two photos appear to show Mr. Barrett at the Furuby mailbox at 9:30 pm on July 15" but not entering the driveway to Furuby.16) When asked about his plans after the lease expires, Mr. Barrett said that, despite his wife not feeling safe there, he is interested in buying Furuby. However, he has not expressed this interest to the Canedays, He said he wants to wait until the Canedays list the house for sale. He said this will allow him to negotiate the best price and will avoid the Canedays taking advantage of him and demanding a higher price. 17) Mr. Barrett does not entertain at Furuby; he said he is not an extrovert. 18)Mr. Barrett does not have intemet service at Furuby; he said he uses his cell phone as a “hot spot” to access the internet. 19) Mr. Barrett has no cable or satellite television service at Furuby; he said he does not watch much television. 20)Mr. Barrett has no trash pickup service; trash pick-up for that area is on Fridays and Mr. Barrett said he does not like Friday trash pick-ups. He disposes of his trash at his Shafer home. 21)Mr. Barrett has no washing machine or dryer at Furuby; he said he does his laundry at Schafer Laundromat. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1) The burden of establishing that Mr. Batrett does not live in Legislative District 32B is, Petitioner Monaghen’s to bear. 2) The parties are not in agreement regarding the burden of proof required in determining that Mr. Barrett does not reside in District 32B. In recent Supreme Court cases in which the issue was whether a judge resided in the district in which he/she was elected, the Supreme Court applied the clear and convincing standard. In re Karasov, 805 N.W.2d 255 (Minn. 2011); In re Pendleton, 810 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 2015).3) Under Article IV, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution, senators and representatives shall be qualified voters of the state, and shall have resided one year in the state and six months immediately preceding the election in the district from which elected. 4) In deciding whether a legislative candidate has resided in the district from which elected, as required by the Minnesota Constitution, the Court “focus[es] on physical presence and intent, as we have done in the voter residency context." Piepho v. Bruns, 652 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 2002); see also Studer v. Kiffineyer, 712N.W.2d 352, 557 (Minn.2006). 5) The Supreme Court has not adopted outright the statutory residency principles established for voters in Minn. Stat. § 200.031 (2010) when interpreting the constitutional requirement for legislators. But the Court has said that "the concept of residency is captured and perhaps best summarized" in that statute. Piepho, 652 N.W.2d at 44., Karasoy, 805 N.W.2d at 265. 6) Under that statute, the mere intention to acquire a new residence is not sufficient to acquire a new residence, unless the individual moves to that location; moving to a new location is not sufficient to acquire a new residence unless the individual intends to remain there. Minn, Stat. § 200.031(i) (2010). With this statutory guidance in mind, the foremost considerations with respect to residency in the election context are physical presence and intent.” Prepho, 652 N.W.2d at 44. 7) The two factors "inform" each other and “neither factor is determinative." /d. In other words, "intent can be demonstrated in many ways, including but not limited to physical presence, and we consider physical presence to the extent that it manifests intent to reside in the district.” Jd, Finally, the Court's precedent recognizes that the factors that establish residency are "largely questions of fact.” Studer, 712 N.W.2d at 558 (quoting Piepho, 652 N.W.2d at 44-45), Karasav at 265.8) Physical Presence The facts in this case establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Barrett did not have the requisite physical presence at Furuby during the requisite period before the election in November. a) Mr, Barrett’s wife’s physical presence at Furuby is virtually non-existent, She spends an average of 0-1 night per week at Furuby, her time spent there having decreased since May. ) Petitioner Monaghen, Ms. Gerdes, and Mr. Rich made 30 visits to Furuby spread out among 15 days between the 4" of July weekend and August 1", 2016 and at various times during the day as early as 5:50am and as late as 10:07pm. ©) Not once during any of those visits did they get a response to door-knocking or bell- ringing, or see or heat anyone, or see both cars at the home. On only one occasion, a basement light was seen, 4) Of the 800 photographs taken by Mr. Kastelein’s trail camera, only 2 appear to show Mr. Barrett's Honda Civie stopped at the mailbox. Both photos were taken at 9:30pm on July 15. Mr, Kastelein testified that the camera setup would have captured the car at the driveway entrance if it had gone to Furuby. ) Mr. Rich’s car lights illuminated the living room at Furuby during one visit and he could see that there was no furniture in the room and nothing hanging on the walls, £) Mr. Barrett does no entertaining at Furuby and has no internet, cable or satellite television, trash service, or a washer and dryer at Furuby. 9) Intent To Remain Mr. Barrett's expressions of intent to make Furuby his home are simply not credible and are completely at odds with the facts. a) Mr. Barrett’s (and his family’s) lack of physical presence at Furuby demonstrate his, lack of intent to remain there, b) This court measures physical presence not only by the individual's bodily presence at Furuby but by the presence or absence of “creature comforts” like trash service, internet, cable or satellite television, houschold appliances, furniture, and pets. ©) Mr. Barrett does not anticipate legal separation or divorce from his wife.4) While Mr. Barrett says he would like to buy Furuby, he admits that he has not discussed this with the landlord, ©) Mr. Barrett’s reason for not discussing the purchase with the landlord is that he wants to wait until the house is listed for sale in order to negotiate the best price. Mr. Barrett said he wants get an idea of what the landlord would want for the house before broaching the subject with him. This would ensure that the landlord, the friend who is giving him a great deal on rent, would not take advantage of him. £) Mr. Barrett also indicated that he wants to buy Furuby despite the fact that his wife has not felt safe there since May because of the activities of DFL activists which she learned about from the pleadings in this matter. The fact that those documents were not created or available to her until three months later contradicts that claim. SUMMARY Just as this court found in the 20%4 case, Mr. Barrett's claims of occupancy and residency at Furuby challenge credulity. His explanation for the impression that no one was home at Furuby when Petitioner and her supporters visited was that he stopped answering the door. That is simply not credible when viewed with all of the other evidence. In the 2014 case, Mr. Barrett's assertion that he resided at the rental property on Mentzer was no more credible than Petitioner's assertion that he did not reside there. In the hearing on Ms, Monaghen’s petition, Mr. Barrett's testimony was not only less credible than Petitioner and her supporting witnesses, his testimony was simply not credible. It is Petitioner’s burden to prove that Mr. Barrett has not resided in District 32B during the six months preceding the November election. In this case, the Court has applied the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. Even at this higher threshold, Petitioner has borne its burden and met that standard.Based on the submissions of the parties, the testimony and evidence at trial, and the applicable law, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Barrett did not reside in Legislative District 32B during the period between the 4"" of July weekend and August 1, 2016. The evidence supports removing Candidate Barrett’s name from the ballot. Date: August 26, 2016 BY THE COURT: (5S George T. Stephenson Judge of District Court