*1 not the of the predicate retaliation victim is victim unlawful act, require showing the statute a distinct of harm to would If speeding the retaliation victim. the defendant breaks the highway, limit on the it pursuing example, while victim does not necessarily speeding follow defendant’s chasing. violation caused harm to the he An person was argument might even be made that the harm element is not if the in- automatically predicate established unlawful acts volved friends or harassing brutalizing family person alleged who is the victim of retaliation. But where (as here), predicate act is criminal and of itself the case act predicate and where victim of the is the same as the (as here), that, retaliation I victim believe under the plain 4953(a) statute, language of the first clause of Section harm has been proven. appellee
Since committed an act against unlawful the Fos- ters in retaliation for their role in securing restitution him, order I against instituted reinstate would his conviction for retaliation. joins NEWMAN this opinion.
909A.2d1235 In re LITTLEPAGE, NOMINATION PETITION OF Albert
Jr., as Candidate for the Democratic Nomination for Philadelphia County.
Traffic Appeal Littlepage, of Albert Jr.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of 5,May
Submitted 2005. 5, May
Decided 2005.
Filed Nov. *2 of Elections. for Bureau Boyle, Esq., Louis Lawrence Philadelphia Tartaglione, City Commis- Margaret M. sioner’s Office. Bochetto, Skovron, Esq., Philadel- George Esq., E.
Stephen Littlepage. for Albert phia, Nocella, Philadelphia, Horsey. for Michael Esq.,
Thomas M. *3 CASTILLE, CAPPY, NEWMAN, C.J., BEFORE: and BAER, SAYLOR, JJ. EAKIN
OPINION BAER. entry May our of an order dated follows Opinion This order 5, 2005, granting the affirming Commonwealth Court’s the to Aside Nomina (Objector) Petition Set Horsey’s Michael (Candidate) of for office Littlepage of Albert tion Petition order, 5May Philadelphia Judge.1 Traffic Court our why the explain follow to lower specified opinion that an would petition based struck properly court in his of timely contained filed Statement deficiencies upon (Financial Statement), pur which was filed Financial Interest 1104(b) Public and Employee to of the Official suant Section et seq.2 Act), 1101, (Ethics §§ 65 Pa.C.S. Ethics Act novo, pure question law is de and our of review of a of 1. Our standard Fajt, Corp. Power v. scope plenary. of See Harbor Water review is Safe 954, (2005). 234, 12 Pa. 966 n. 876 1104(6) part: provides, in relevant 2. Section The factual of the history straightforward. case is Prior to filing deadline, March Candidate filed a nominating petition placed have his name on ballot for the Demo- Primary cratic Election for the of position Traffic Philadelphia He Judge. included with his a Financial papers State- 1104(b) ment in accordance Section with the Ethics Act. Thereafter, 15, 2005, on March Objector filed a to set petition aside Candidate’s nomination on the petition basis by Financial Statement submitted a ma- Candidate contained omission, Statement, terial which rendered the Financial petition the nominating well as defective. fatally Specifically, Objector alleged that Candidate failed to enter information regarding income Candidate derived from rental 10 of Block the Financial relating Statement to “Direct or Indirect sources of Income” in accordance with Section 1105(b)(5) Act, of the Ethics which requires person filing a to provide the name and address of any direct indirect source of totaling or more. $1300 Specifically, Objector claimed that Candidate “None” indicated when, fact, in Block 10 he owned rental property him provided Thereafter, with a source income.3 Candidate and, fact, amend Financial sought filed an Therein, amended statement on March (2) Any county-level candidate for office or local shall file a statement preceding year govern- financial interests for calendar with the ing authority political subdivision in he is a candidate day filing petition appear or before the last on the ballot for copyA election. of the statement of financial interests shall also be appended petition. to such (3) petition No appear accepted on the ballot for election shall be respective ... state election unless officials has *4 appended thereto a of statement financial interests as forth in set (2)]. [paragraph to Failure file the statement in with accordance the shall, provisions chapter penalties of this in to addition other provided, petition appear be a fatal defect to a to on the ballot. 1104(b). § 65 Pa.C.S. Objector attempted append objections 3. later to peti- additional his to however, petition; set tion to aside Candidate’s nomination these untimely, they were days claims as were not within of filed seven the Code, filing petition. of See Candidate's nomination Election 25 P.S. § (specifying petitions papers 2937 that nomination and shall be objections days). valid deemed unless are filed seven within
459 as a source from rental monies he derived disclosed of in Block 10. court pleas of the common held three-judge
A panel objections. the nomination and hearing concerning court, on our decision in hearing, relying prior the Following 402, Pa. Benninghoff, In re Nomination Petition of (2004) permit the Ethics Act (interpreting a candidate’s an amendment a financial statement where re- substantially initial with its complies Financial Statement failed to although pro- concluded that quirements), requisite in the information cited vide his Financial Statement rather, his did faith but by Objector, omission not reflect bad of information. Ac- required his mistaken interpretation his the court amendment of cordingly, validated Candidate’s him on the permitted appear and ballot. Colins, Judge writing
President the Commonwealth decision, Court, reversed the single-judge in a memorandum The that common court. Commonwealth Court noted pleas a candidate to Benninghoff permitted our Court although Financial its technical defect- despite amend his as his failure to list his then current state namely, position upon of did representative as a source income-we so based “facially fact could be obtained omitted information provided from on the form as a 852 A.2d information whole.” Specifically, Benninghoff, at an incumbent state 1187. representative seeking reelection failed list his (Direct as a in Block 10 and Indirect representative state Income) of of the financial interest form. Elsewhere Sources form, however, 4, 5, variously he listed Blocks (Block representative his or a state occupation profession as 4), his employee indicated status an official (Block 5), representative relevant state district and listed state (Block 6). as his Id. determined profession at position ques- since three other disclosures compliance” requirements tion “substantial with evinced Act, Benninghoffs failure state representative to list Block not a fatal defect. Id. at 1187. 10 was *5 that,
The Commonwealth
further
Court
noted
in deciding
Benninghoff, our
did not expressly
overrule their prior
Anastasio,
(Pa.Cmwlth.2003),
decision in In re
The Commonwealth Court Anastasio’s basis for not the form completing required, as that he noting knew he had income, he to report. which failed The court observed that the Act Ethics does not allow “errors of omission.” Id. the court held that his omission was fatal to his 1104(b)(3) appearing on the ballot pursuant Section Act, Ethics see note supra as he failed to “file the [financial in accordance with the provisions chapter.” statement] this 1104(b)(3)) added). § Id. (citing Pa.C.S. (emphasis ballot, striking Anastasio from the the court recognized 1104(b)(3) “section real has teeth and is quite harsh its scheme.” Id. Anastasio,
In Benninghoff,
distinguished
noting
“vast distinction
Benninghoff's
between
he
wherein
disclosed an
position for
he
a statutorily
receives
mandated and published salary and
income,
reported supplemental
and Anastasio’s utter failure to
designate anything.” Benninghoff,
Because didwe not overrule Anastasio in Benninghoff, Commonwealth Court concluded that the facts of this case are more analogous to those of Benninghoff. Anastasio than The that, Anastasio, like testified that court noted while information from his Financial he omitted certain omission, errors of and that his form thus contained such misunderstanding omissions resulted from his what *6 Moreover, unlike required information on form. was Statement, Benninghoff's facially candidate Financial form, contained the information elsewhere on the relevant Financial lacked other any here Candidate’s indica Accordingly, tion of the income. the Common unreported reject the common court decision pleas wealth Court reversed Objector’s to set aside ing petition. argued that the Commonwealth Court erred be- closely
cause his situation more resembles that in Bennin- He ghoff. claimed that because the information omitted from i.e., Statement, his Financial income from rental original prop- erties, records, he, was ascertainable like by way public Benninghoff, substantially complied with the Ethics Act and his subsequently amended Financial Statement should be al- Further, as it in Benninghoff. lowed Candidate argued that the erred in on relying Commonwealth Court Anastasio because this Court’s decision Benninghoff eviscerated Anastasio.
As
appears
it
difficulty
lower courts have had
our
interpreting
prior precedent,4 we now take the opportunity
to
our
clarify
reasoning
Benninghoff
and consider Anasta-
sio
its
light.
Benninghoff,
permitted
we
a
to
candidate
amend his financial statement
to correct a technical defect
where
candidate had substantially complied with the Eth-
See,
Braxton,
35,
e.g.,
Nominating
In re
Petitions
583 Pa.
874 A.2d
(2005)
curiam)
(per
(reversing
contrary
Benninghoff
as
permitting
Commonwealth Court’s decision
candidate to amend his
Statement of Financial Interest and remain on the ballot
candi-
where
date did not disclose rental
income and the names and addresses of
holding mortgages
properties);
creditors
on
rental
In re Nomination
557,
(2005)
curiam)
Katofsky,
Petition
(per
582 Pa.
In further
of his
support
concurring opin
and
Mr.
Castille’s
sively
exclusively,
that our decision
Benninghoff
proposition
ion in
for the
in Anas
and the
Court’s decision
Benninghoff
Commonwealth
therefore,
that,
reconciled and
Anastasio
tasio cannot be
opinion,
In that
concurrence
decision is of no moment.
could not have inter
that the Commonwealth Court
suggested
“substantial com
Benninghoff's
in line
preted Anastasio
with
yet
that test had not
been enunciated
test because
pliance”
Regardless of the specific language used Com Anastasio, monwealth Court in the facts and result of that case square our decision in Benninghoff with As the lower bar, court noted in the case at we did not abrogate Anastasio in Benninghoff, and the facts of this case closely track those in Here, akin, Anastasio. identical, Candidate’s error is if not Anastasio gave because Candidate no indication anywhere his statement that he drew income from other sources as required Block 10 though even he had such income. See Anastasio; Braxton; Katofsky. A reviewer of the form would have absolutely no reason to believe Candidate received such income. there is not sufficient information on the face of Candidate’s Financial Statement to constitute substantial compliance requirements with the of the Act. Benninghoff, 852 A.2d at 1187. argument that his ownership of the public was record provide does not an exemption
from the purpose Act, of the Ethics which is to inform the voters where candidate’s financial interests lie prior to election. Candidate’s contention that his ownership rental properties public record in way no indicates that he derives income from properties, those unlike Benninghoff whose occupation in itself provides the public with notice that he is a salaried state employee. In Benninghoff] availability a candidate’s salary as a matter of public record was emphasized solely to demonstrate that the candi *8 date’s disclosure of occupation his in sections of the Financial shall, provisions accordance with chapter the of this any addition to penalties provided, other be a petition fatal defect to a appear on a Further, "provisions ballot.” chapter” 1105(b) the of this in Section require report any a candidate to income of $1300. over Under Section 1101.1, which states "liberally the Act is to be construed to disclosure,”
promote complete financial we determined that an omis- sion in a certain block of the disclosure form does not invalidate the entire pertinent if the information is disclosed elsewhere on the face of the document. 464 notice of his financial interest sufficient provided at Benninghoff
his 852 A.2d 1187. public employment. in stark contrast to a source of income. This is did not omit of no indication gave the Candidate judice case sub of rental section supplementary from Moreover, have declined his Financial Statement. in- where the undisclosed such omissions even accommodate Braxton; a record.6 See See public formation matter also Anastasio. to disclose income he derived
Because Candidate failed on of his Financial the face properties anywhere from rental Statement, is fatal to his nomination Candidate’s error Act. Accordingly, Ethics the Commonwealth Court under the from on the ballot for appearing properly struck May order dated by per as we affirmed curiam elective office 5,2005. CASTILLE, CAPPY, Justice and Justice
Chief Justice NEWMAN, join the opinion. and Justice SAYLOR concurring files opinion.
Justice EAKIN a EAKIN, concurring. join majority’s affirming I the Commonwealth decision However, I order, existing it precedent. applied Court’s my Benninghoff, view that In re write reiterate separately (2004), 402, 852 1182 and In re Nomination 578 Pa. A.2d (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), Anastasio, 880 820 A.2d Petition aff'd (2003), curiam, are Pa. 373 irreconcil per are petitions] able that “fatal defects [of at untimely Benninghoff, limited See filings.” J.). Eakin, J., this (Castille, joined by Under concurring, in a financial of whether defect candidate’s the determination fatal, inquiry qualifies as does not turn on mens rea of disclosure form, i.e., completing whether or not the candidate the candidate in assets, inquiry hinge thought fully disclosing he was nor does availability public outside of the informa- of information records public policy animating Act is to allow the tion The disclosed. the source a candidate’s income and electorate to determine both from financial statement alone. identify the candidate's debtors *9 have petition would view, amended ballot. appeared on allowed, have and he would been Pennsylvania, Appellee, COMMONWEALTH
v. McCLINTIC, Appellant. John Pennsylvania. Supreme 1, 2006. Argued March 22, 2006. Decided Nov.