The Legal Intelligencer Blog

The Infallible Internet?

The Internet is truly a wonderful thing.  It offers a seemingly infinite amount of information on virtually any subject imaginable.  On the other hand, most Internet users are well aware that some of the information on the Web is of questionable validity and much of the information must be verified with additional sources before it can be trusted.  Yet, despite the Internet’s obvious shortcomings, litigants and courts cite to materials on the Web with alarming frequency.  Even worse, courts have been willing to take “judicial notice” of supposedly irrefutable facts simply because those facts appear on the web.

In both state and federal court in Pennsylvania, judicial notice may be taken of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute.”  Such facts include those that are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”  Do newspaper or corporate Web sites qualify as such infallible sources?  Some courts appear to think so.

For example, in the recent case of Riverlife Task Force v. Planning Commission, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took judicial notice that a Pittsburgh slot machine license had been transferred from one company to another.  The source for the court’s information?  A news article from a local newspaper’s Web site.  Without intending any disrespect to the newspaper industry, it is doubtful that a newspaper’s Web site is the type of unimpeachable source that is so infallible that its accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

While the fact judicially noticed in Riverlife was not a significant (or contested) issue in that case, in many cases, courts have taken judicial notice of key facts on the basis of information found on the Internet.  Take the 2007 decision of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court in Victaulic Co. v. Tieman.  In Tieman, the court reviewed a non-compete provision in an employment contract in order to determine, in response to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), whether the restrictions in the contract were reasonable.  The provision restricted the former employee from engaging in certain activities wherever the plaintiff company’s products were sold.  Thus, the scope of the company’s market was a significant issue in the case.

The court found that the company “undisputedly sells its products ‘worldwide,’” basing this conclusion on the company’s Web site, which, the court noted, “verifies that it is a global business with facilities in North America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.”  The court indicated that it could “take judicial notice of this information as a matter of public record that is capable of accurate and ready determination by a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”  The court also took judicial notice that Victaulic sold products in the building services, industrial, water and wastewater, mining, and oilfield industries, relying again on the company’s Web site for this information.  Eventually, the court ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid because it was unreasonable as a matter of law.

On appeal, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.  The court expressed “particular concern  . . .  that the District Court used the Web site at www.victaulic.com to establish certain facts about Victaulic’s business.”  The court noted “anyone may purchase an internet address, and so, without proceeding to discovery or some other means of authentication, it is premature to assume that a webpage is owned by a company merely because its trade name appears in the uniform resource locator.”  Moreover, the court noted, “a company’s website is a marketing tool,” which might be “full of imprecise puffery that no one should take at face value.”  In short, the district court erred in “taking a bare ‘fact’ that is reflected not in the pleadings, but on a corporate website, and then drawing inferences against the non-moving party so as to dismiss its well-pleaded claims on the basis of an affirmative defense,” a process that the court held was “far too far afield from the adversarial context of litigation.”

The trial court’s use of the Victaulic Web site in Tieman is not exactly unusual.  Many courts have taken judicial notice of facts found on corporate web sites.  For example, last year, a federal court in New York took judicial notice that the iPod and iPhone “are critical to Apple’s financial success” — a proposition that certainly seems intuitive — on the basis of an Apple press release posted on its Web site.  Again, is a corporate press release (or, as the 3rd Circuit pointed out in Tieman, something that appears to be a corporate press release) posted on the Web really the type of source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned?

Well before the Internet became ubiquitous, litigants and courts struggled with the requirements for, and application of, judicial notice.  The advent of the Internet, however, provides every litigant and judge with a ready source of information to fill any gap in the evidentiary record.  Given the high standard for taking judicial notice, courts should resist the temptation to resort to the Internet and its bottomless well of information as a way to fill those gaps.

This posting is intended only to inform, not to provide legal advice; and readers should seek professional advice for specific applications of the information.

Bruce P. Merenstein
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
www.schnader.com

Securing Our Nation’s Borders: The First Step Toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform

On Oct.6, 2006, former President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act, a first step toward our nation’s efforts to control our borders and reform our immigration system.  In early 2006, Bush presented a vision for immigration reform.  The Secure Fence Act was a part of this vision, and the former president worked with Congress to pass the remaining elements of this plan.  Through the use of physical barriers and cutting edge technology, the act was designed to assist our ICE border patrol agents in making our borders more secure.  The act called for the authorization of the construction of over 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border; more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and illumination to prevent people from entering the United States illegally; and the increased use of advanced technology including satellites, cameras and aircraft to reinforce our infrastructure at the border. 

From 2001 to 2008, federal funding for border security has increased from $4.6 billion to $10.4 billion.  In 2008, ICE doubled the number of border patrol agents since 2001 to more than 12,000 agents.  The former president also deployed the use of thousands of National Guard members to assist the border patrol agents.  In 2008, technology at the borders was vastly improved, which included the aforementioned fencing and vehicle barriers.  Through 2008, ICE has apprehended and returned home more than six million people who entered or attempted to enter the U.S. illegally.  In addition, the detention facilities have been expanded in order to allow the border patrol agents to continue working to end “catch and release” at our southern border.

As of February 2009, the U.S.-Mexico border fence with a price tag of $2.6 billion was nearly complete. The fence, which is not continuous, currently stretches from San Diego, Calif., to Brownsville, Texas.  Nearly all of the 89 miles of border fencing planned for the El Paso, Texas, sector, which includes New Mexico, has been constructed at a cost of more than $228 million.  Left to be completed is a two-mile section in San Elizario, Texas, a small town between Fabens and the Ysleta Port of Entry.  This section will be completed in the spring of 2009. 

Although opinions are mixed as to the effectiveness of the border fence or whether such a measure is ethical, it clearly is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.  More focus needs to be made by the Mexican government toward providing its citizens with adequate jobs and opportunity in order to curtail the number of Mexican citizens who choose to cross the U.S. border to seek what they believe to be a better life.   Concurrently, the United States needs to develop a visa program that would allow these Mexican citizens the opportunity to find employment, at least in the short-term, in the United States on a temporary basis.   At the very least, the border fence, with its hefty price tag of $2.6 billion, has served to significantly curtail these illegal crossings for the foreseeable future.  In addition, it has shifted the focus back to the Mexican and U.S. governments, which are now faced with the unenviable task of providing employment opportunities on a legal basis for these Mexican citizens who are really doing nothing more than attempting to seek a better life for themselves and their families.

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

Williams Booted From DA Ballot

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

Democratic district attorney candidate Seth Williams has been kicked off the ballot after a Philadelphia judge ruled late today that Williams should have reported more than $10,000 in campaign reimbursements in a campaign filing laying out his financial interests.

The judge also said Williams couldn't fix the filing because of prior caselaw.

"In summary, the candidate failed to report the receipt of expenses in excess of $10,000 from his campaign as required by law and such failure must render his Nominating Petition fatally defective," Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Allan L. Tereshko wrote in an opinion issued today.

Williams' campaign is vowing to appeal the case first thing Monday, according to Dan Fee, Williams' campaign manager. Fee also argues that Dan McCaffery, Williams' competitor who brought the challenge, has received $3,759 in campaign reimbursements that were not reported on his financial disclosures.

Williams' campaign is considering appealing Tereshko's decision that left DA competitor Michael Turner on the ballot with just 82 signatures to spare.

Josh Morrow, McCaffery's campaign manager, said that suspicions were raised about Williams' campaign finances by a number of reporters in the town and their questions didn't get answered, leading to McCaffery's court challenge.

The Legal will have a more in-depth analysis next week about what this latest development will mean for the district attorney's race.

Judge: DA Hopeful Turner Qualified for Primary Ballot

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

With just 82 signatures to spare, Democratic district attorney candidate Michael Turner will be on the May primary ballot.

Turner's campaign coordinator Harry Cook and Turner's counsel Larry Otter, a Doylestown, Pa., solo practitioner, confirmed that after four days of court proceedings Turner has kept enough challenged signatures during a challenge to his nominating petition to qualify for the ballot.

Cook said that Turner should have had 3,000 signatures in order to be safe because of the rule of thumb that 2,000 signatures should be gathered in order to get 1,000 qualified signatures. "We're lucky to have made it past the threshold," Cook said.

Turner did not have more signatures because a petition manager did not deliver promised signatures from northwest Philadelphia, and Turner's signatures were collected by volunteers, Cook said. "They clearly weren't up to the standard we were hoping for," Cook said.

Turner's signatures were challenged by opponent Seth Williams. Williams was represented by Abbe F. Fletman of Flaster Greenburg.

Dan Fee, a Williams spokesman, said the campaign has not yet seen an order from Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Allan L. Tereshko in order to make a decision about appealing the case.

Tereshko also has not yet ruled on the challenge by DA competitor Dan McCaffery to Williams' statement of financial interest, which is required to be filed in support of nominating petitions.

Dan McElhatton and Brian Grady are also running in the Democratic primary. Michael Untermeyer is the only Republican in the race.

To friend or Not to Friend – Social Media for Lawyers -- Part 6: Blogging for Lawyers

For those of you reading this blog – you undoubtedly know about “blogs” and “blogging,” but, for the inexperienced, “blog” is short for “Web log.” In the legal industry, they are also known as “blawgs,” short for “law blogs.” I maintain a blog at www.ThePRLawyer.com, and I write for The Legal Intelligencer Blog.

Blogs started out as online journals where people could frequently updated and share information about their lives. They have morphed into extremely valuable business development and marketing tools when executed with purpose, passion, planning, productivity, presentation and publicity in mind.

Blogs are great tools for attorneys to establish themselves as leaders in their fields of practice and to establish an online social discourse. They should be used to have online discussions with target audiences, including prospective clients and the media. What’s important to remember, though, is that your blog is “yours”. It should reflect your voice and thoughts, not those of a marketing or public relations professional.

In my book, Everyday Public Relations for Lawyers, I quote Kevin O’Keefe of LexBlog. He calls blogging “PR by participation.” That means getting involved and engaging yourself in the online social conversation. According to O’Keefe, “Blogs are imperative for attorneys who want to establish themselves in their areas of practice.”

However, Brian Solis, the principal of FutureWorks in Silicon Valley, recently questioned if “blogs are losing their authority to the statusphere.” He said, “A disruptive trend is already at play. While blogs are increasing in quantity, their authority—as currently measured by Technorati—is collectively losing influence.”

Note: Technorati is an Internet search engine for searching blogs. Technorati indexes more than 1.5 million new blog posts in real time and introduces millions of readers to blog and social media content.

It is important to understand what Solis means by “authority.” He says, “Links from blogs are no longer the only measurable game in town. Potentially valuable linkbacks are increasingly shared in micro communities and social networks and it is detouring attention and time away from formal blog responses.”

Solis also concluded that blogs are “entrenched in the mainstream” and with this, I agree. What I find even more prolific is that many of us who are strategic legal marketing and public relations experts have been telling attorneys who have solid niche practices to blog for years. And although the medium for communicating is considered mainstream – we are still trying to convince many lawyers that this is a valuable tool to add to their integrated marketing plans.

What should lawyers consider before blogging?

 Before you decide to blog, ask yourself a few critical questions: 

•  Does your firm have social media, marketing or public relations policies regarding blogs or other online discourse to which you are bound?
• Do you have a niche area of practice to which you currently or will in the future devote a substantial amount of your practice?
•  Have you researched the market landscape and determined how you can create a competitive advantage?
•  Is there an online audience who will care about what you have to say and be engaged by your commentary?
• Are you interested and willing to provide valuable, meaningful content to your target audiences?
•  Are you willing to set aside at least 15 minutes a day, three days per week to blog?
•  Do you have the time to commit long-term to manage a blog?

Once you’ve answered these questions, you will know whether blogging is right for you. Then, you need to commit to do it right.  My colleague, Gil Marquez, law firm administrator for Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig said recently that “The only thing worse than no blog is a stale blog.”

 What are the best practices for legal blogging?

Joshua Fruchter, a former attorney, president of eLawMarketing  [www.elawmarketing.com] and author of the blog www.lawyercasting.com, published an article on the best practices for blogging in 2006. I asked Josh what he thinks has changed since then. He said, “The two biggest changes from 2006 are the increasing importance of customization, and the convergence of blogging and social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.”

In terms of customization, Fruchter said, “On the design side, being able to create a custom look and feel for your blog is important to differentiate your blog from the growing competition in the blawgosphere. On the publishing side, being able to customize your title and description tags for individual blog posts is critical for maximizing search engine visibility and traffic.”

As for convergence of social media and blogging, Fruchter said, “With the convergence of social media and blogging has come an increase in the number of channels for disseminating your blog content. Now when you publish a blog post you can share it across all of your networks in a matter of seconds, rather than wait for people to visit your blog.”

In my most recent seminar, Social Media for Lawyers, I demonstrate Fructer’s point. The example I use happens to be this blog. Using Part 4: Twitter for Lawyers as the example, I demonstrate that once the blog was published, I shared it on Twitter with my tweeple. It was then retweeted to others thus driving traffic back to the blog. I shared the blog as a note on Facebook and shared it with several relevant groups on Linkedin. I also posted a status update using HelloTxt.com which updated all of my social media statuses with a link to the article. Within 24 hours, the blog post was picked up by The National Law Journal and then by the Wall Street Journal online. And on and on it goes – where it will stop, nobody knows. That’s the beauty of convergence.

In Part 7 of To friend or Not to Friend – Social Media for Lawyers, I will talk about JD Supra. Stay tuned to The Legal Intelligencer’s Lawyers and the Media blog.

Gina F. Rubel, Esq.
Furia Rubel Communications, Inc.
http://www.furiarubel.com/

The Solution for Lawyers: Abstinence

That’s financial abstinence, of course.  The other kind, the Mrs. wouldn’t appreciate.

Perhaps you haven’t checked your retirement account balance.  Neither have I, but it’s probably off a little from its peak in late 2007.  If history is a guide, the market will recover before the economy in general, and that could happen over the next few months.  But it’s likely that a full recovery of your retirement account will take a year or two, perhaps longer.  That’s not too serious a problem, if you have many years left before retirement.  But, what to do if you’ve just reached your retirement age or will do so in a year or two?

Many financial advisers remain confident that the securities markets will recover after a year or two, but that’s little comfort if you’ve cashed out of investments and are taking withdrawals.  You will be better off if you can wait to take withdrawals from your retirement account.  And you can do that.  The Internal Revenue Code rules on minimum distributions from qualified retirement plans, such as 401(k) plans, require that distributions begin by April 1 of the year following the year in which you attain age 70 1/2.  Even then, required minimums for the first few years hover around the 4 to 5 percent rate.  This means that, at least in normal times, your account could actually continue to grow for a few years after you start taking distributions.  As an alternative, take the funds you need for retirement from non-tax-deferred accounts for as long as possible.  Since you’re withdrawing savings, much of what you take for living expenses will not be taxable income, which means that your income tax liability will fall.  Compare that to distributions from qualified plans, nearly all or all of which will be fully taxable as ordinary income.

Another retirement topic being discussed in today’s economic environment is the wisdom of converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.  Roth IRAs have the advantage that, after a period of time, all distributions are completely free of income tax.  The cost of doing so is that the traditional IRA must be subjected to income tax at the time of conversion.  But if the values of assets are low, the cost of conversion, that is, the payment of income tax, will be lower as well.  There is an income limit that prevents many people from converting to Roth status, but that income limit will disappear next year (unless the law is changed).  The premise of this type of planning is that although you pay tax now, all of the future growth will be tax-free.  That’s a strategy, but you have to consider how long you will have to experience that growth.  If you’re at or near retirement age, and you will need the IRA for retirement expenses, you might not have the time for growth that offsets the disadvantage of paying tax up front.  As with all retirement planning strategies, one size does not fit all.

Robert H. Louis
Saul Ewing
http://saul.com

Still No Decision on Williams' Papers, as Judge Counts Turner's Signatures

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

As of 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, there is not yet a ruling on district attorney candidate Dan McCaffery's challenge to opponent Seth Williams' right to be on the ballot because of an allegedly defective statement of financial interest. And district attorney candidate Mike Turner appears to be seven signatures away from being on the ballot, unless an appeals court decides otherwise.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Allan. L. Tereshko, Turner's counsel Larry Otter, a Doylestown, Pa., solo practitioner, Williams' counsel Abbe F. Fletman of Flaster Greenberg, representing Williams in his challenge to Turner, several County Commissioners' officials and others have been hunched around computer screens for a line-by-line challenge to Turner's right to be on the ballot since midday Monday.

Tereshko said Monday he would rule in the challenge to Williams' case, but there isn't a decision as of yet. Fletman said that the judge said he was working on a decision in spare moments, but there wasn't a decision yet. Proxy objectors say in court papers that Williams should be tossed from the ballot because his statement of financial interest doesn't include campaign reimbursements.

Tereshko took a half-hour recess after 5 p.m. Wednesday before the line-by-line action continues in Turner's case. While Turner is close to making the ballot with only seven more signatures needed, the rest of the challenged signatures are going to be reviewed either later Wednesday or Thursday in order to develop an appellate record, Otter said. Turner needs 1,000 valid signatures to appear on the ballot in the May 19 Democratic district attorney primary, and he submitted 1,800 signatures.

As Fletman's expert left for the day, she got advice from the judge and others about the best place to grab a Philly cheese steak before leaving the city behind.

No Ruling Yet in Case Over Williams’ Nominating Papers

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

At the end of the court day, there was apparently no ruling in the challenge to Philadelphia district attorney candidate Seth Williams' nominating petition.

While Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Allan L. Tereshko said Monday that he planned to issue a ruling in the challenge by the end of today, the docket in the case does not show that a ruling has been made. District attorney opponent Dan McCaffery has said in a challenge filed through proxy objectors that Williams should be removed from the ballot because his statement of financial interests does not list campaign reimbursements.

McCaffery spokesman Joshua Morrow said the campaign has no word yet that a decision has been issued and believes that Tereshko has been tied up in a line-by-line signature challenge made by Williams to opponent Michael Turner's nominating petition.

Larry Otter, a Doylestown, Pa., solo practitioner representing Turner, said late today that Turner is down 94 signatures from being a candidate, and there are more than 50 pages of signature left to go through. Otter said the campaign needed about two signatures per page in order to get on the ballot. Turner turned in 1,800 signatures, and he needed 1,000 to be on the ballot.

EEOC Issues Proposed Regulations Under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

 [This posting is for informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as legal advice on any matter]

On March 2, the EEOC issued proposed regulations that would implement Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, or GINA. Congress enacted Title II of GINA to protect individuals from discrimination based on their genetic information, to restrict the deliberate acquisition of genetic information by employers and other covered entities, and to strictly limit such entities from disclosing genetic information. Former President George W. Bush signed GINA into law May 21, 2008.

GINA incorporates by reference many of the familiar definitions, remedies and procedures from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other statutes protecting federal, state and congressional employees from discrimination. However, GINA does have several nuances. Here are few of these points as addressed in the proposed GINA regulations:

• “Employee” can mean many things. Under GINA, the term “employee” includes not only current employees, but also applicants and former employees.
•  GINA has some new terms. GINA includes six terms not found in any other employment discrimination statutes that the EEOC enforces: Family Member; Family Medical History; Genetic Information; Genetic Monitoring; Genetic Services; and Genetic Test. The regulations supplement the GINA definitions of these terms. The regulations further address the term “manifestation or manifested,” which is not separately defined in GINA.
• GINA is very broad in scope. GINA is to be broadly construed to extend to generally prohibited practices like hiring, promotion, demotion, seniority, compensation, and the terms, conditions and privileges of employment. GINA also extends to actions of employment agencies (failing or refusing to refer for employment), labor unions (excluding or expelling from membership), and training, retraining, and apprenticeship programs (denying admission to or employment is such programs).
• Inadvertent disclosures are generally protected. GINA protects against deliberate acquisition of genetic information. However, a covered entity that inadvertently acquires genetic information from an individual (e.g., water cooler talk, unsolicited e-mails) does not violate GINA.
• Family medical history is usually a no-no. Even though the Americans with Disabilities Act allows an employer to require a medical examination of all employees to whom it has offered a particular job, GINA would prohibit inquiries about family medical history as part of the examination. The same holds true when an employee claims to have a disability or otherwise seeks a reasonable accommodation. Therefore, an employer should take specific affirmative steps to assure that family medical history or other genetic information is not provided. A covered entity that receives family medical history pursuant to a certification under the Family and Medical Leave Act does not violate GINA provided, however, that the covered entity satisfies GINA’s confidentiality requirements.
• Retaliation is prohibited. As under other federal anti-discrimination laws, a covered entity cannot retaliate against an individual who opposes any act made unlawful by GINA, files a charge of discrimination or assist another in doing so, or gives testimony in connection with a charge.

Although many employers may not envision ever intentionally seeking an employee’s family medical history or genetic information, both employees and employers need to be mindful of the new GINA requirements.

Comments regarding the EEOC’s proposed regulations that would implement GINA must be received by the EEOC on or before May 1.

Eric B. Meyer is a member of the labor and employment group at Dilworth Paxson LLP. Readers can contact Meyer via e-mail and follow him on Twitter.

DA Hopefuls Spar Over Transparency of Williams' Financial Interest Statement

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

If he is not allowed to amend his financial disclosure statement, would Seth Williams' candidacy for district attorney be doomed?

That was a question posed by Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Allan L. Tereshko in a hearing on challenges to Williams' candidate documents. Tereshko pondered if "the absence of that amendment would doom his candidacy" during a hearing held today at the County Commissioners office.

George Bochetto of Bochetto & Lentz, who is representing DA candidate Dan McCaffery, said that Williams' statement of financial interest is deficient because it does not list $10,000 in reimbursements from a campaign committee. The statement of financial interests is filed as part of the requirement to get on the ballot. Bochetto said that Williams should be knocked off the May primary ballot because of what he called a lack of transparency and violation of the Ethics Act. He argued further that the lapse could not be fixed by amendment because it was not a mere technical defect, but a substantive defect.

But Williams' lawyer, Abbe F. Fletman of Flaster Greenberg, said that one of the objectors in the case -- a voter named Jason Stein --  was able to find all of the campaign reimbursements in Williams' committee's campaign finance filings, which is a sign that Williams was completely transparent about the reimbursements his family members and he received for campaign expenditures.

Transparency was the theme of both lawyers’ arguments.

Bochetto argued "9 out of 10" voters seeking information about a candidate's sources of income will only rely on the statement of financial interests. Without including the campaign income on the statement, Williams was not being transparent with voters and was violating the requirements of the Ethics Act, Bochetto said.

Bochetto also said Williams can't fix his statement of financial interests to include $10,000 in campaign reimbursements because the campaign income was not listed within the "four corners" of the statement of financial interest. Only technical defects, not more substantial defects like William's, can be fixed, Bochetto said.

Tereshko asked Bochetto why the state Supreme Court's ruling in the 2004 case of state Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, a Republican from central Pennsylvania, did not apply to Williams' case. In Benninghoff 's case, the state Supreme Court overturned the Commonwealth Court. The Supreme Court found that, despite Benninghoff's failure to disclose in Block 10 of his statement that he received a direct source of income from the state as a member of the General Assembly, Benninghoff could amend his statement because Benninghoff had noted in other blocks of his statement that he was employed as a state legislator and his salary was a matter of public record.

Bochetto replied that, unlike Williams who made no mention of campaign reimbursements in his statement, Benninghoff could amend his statement to include his legislative income because Benninghoff had noted in other blocks of his statement that he was a state legislator, Bochetto said.

Tereshko asked Fletman if the court only could look at the "four corners" of Williams' statement of financial interests, and not his campaign finance filings, in order to decide if Williams' statement was compliant with the ethics law.

Fletman argued that in Benninghoff 's case the court examined external documents like the public record of Benninghoff's legislative salary in upholding Benninghoff's right to amend his statement of financial interests and stay on the ballot.

Feldman said Tereshko has to balance the candidates' right to run for office, the voters’ right to vote for their chosen candidate and the responsibility that candidates make full disclosure under the Ethics Act.

Bochetto also argued that Williams should have listed as a source of income $ 1,300 in charges on Williams' mother's American Express card, which were used for campaign expenses and reimbursed through Williams' campaign. "The voters have a right to know he's relying on mom's pocketbook to run for office," Bochetto said.

Williams, in testimony, explained he is an authorizer user of that card, and in any event the campaign committee reimbursed the account for the charges.

On his statement of financial interests, Williams only listed his employment with law firms Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young and Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer & Toddy, his employment with the city of Philadelphia as inspector general, his teaching stint at Neumann College and his employment by the U.S. Army Reserves.

During testimony, Williams said in an "overabundance of caution" he had listed pensions from the Army and the city of Philadelphia that he is not yet receiving in order to be transparent about his sources of income.

 Williams filed an amended statement of financial interests Friday.   Bochetto said at Monday's  hearing  the statement still did not include $10,000 in  campaign reimbursements, and it was a sign that Williams was not proceeding in "good faith. "  In the statement, Williams said that he does not believe that campaign reimbursements count as income under the Ethics Act, but he listed the reimbursements -- which were included in his campaign finance filings -- in an exhibit attached to his amended statement.

Tereshko said he plans to rule by the end of Tuesday about the challenge to Williams’ petition.

Tereshko also heard arguments today about Williams' challenge to fellow candidate Michael Turner's nomination petition. Turner is represented by Lawrence Otter, a Doylestown solo practitioner. Kevin Greenberg of Flaster Greenberg argued on behalf of Williams in Turner’s case.