-22-
bricks, it would have been impossible for him to have obtained
such information in 2000.
With respect to petitioner’s testimony regarding the alleged
humidifier theft, such testimony was vague as to when he became
aware of that alleged theft. Indeed, petitioner did not even
give a timeframe in such testimony. Petitioner’s only testimony
with respect to the alleged humidifier theft was that “We also
were charged for humidifiers that were not installed. That was
$1,000 that we asked for verification for and did not receive
verification for.”
On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed
to carry his burden of establishing that he became aware of the
alleged brick theft and the alleged humidifier theft in October
2000 or at any time in that year.9 On that record, we further
9Petitioner declared under oath (petitioner’s declaration)
in the April 11, 2003 application filed with the District Court
of Maryland for Anne Arundel County that “Between July 25, 2001
and Aug 8, 2001, Garrett Mona, Patrick Mona and Nick Mona inten-
tionally misrepresented their intent to * * * repair defective
work that existed at that time” in the custom house. That
declaration indicates to us that petitioner became aware of
certain unspecified defective work in the custom house sometime
prior to his moving into that house around Aug. 29, 2001. We
infer from petitioner’s declaration in the April 11, 2003 appli-
cation that petitioner became aware of certain defective work in
the custom house sometime in the summer of 2001. That inference
is consistent with other statements that petitioner made (1) in
the April 11, 2003 application, (2) in the November 8, 2002
letter to the Maryland Attorney General, and (3) in the insurance
litigation counterclaim. Petitioner’s declaration in the April
11, 2003 application does not evidence that petitioner became
aware of any defective work in the custom house in 2000.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011