illinois the district court held and opposing counsel argues that the appellant is dumb sided and noisy because of his substantial presence in illinois and his failure to sufficiently show physical presence of perjury that he lives you know want to enjoy and intends to remain indefinitely so if you're registered you stated that under penalty of perjury that is the federal standard for d a separate potential problem i'm interested at the moment in the fact that you are saying it is clearly erroneous for the district court to a file that you are a dumbass joey area of illinois and i wonder how that is time that i did register it stated that that was my understanding my understanding was that you have a residence in illinois so but regardless the fact is always the facts are what they are regardless what i s of where the doma silent now i cited supreme court cases of what constitutes domiciled it doesn't have to do with the physical presence or the residence quinn has to do with the intent to the the individual mr haydn he grew up in illinois peoria illinois he went to school in illinois he worked until annoy all this family and friends or illinois and what he did in in propellent grew up in new york went to school in new york has a business in new york still has a business in new york and has a residence in new york receives mail regularly in new york all of his family and friends are new york his connection here is his wife's hand now the opposing counsel in her brief she states that it was fifteen years of uninterrupted residence that's not accurate that's not pleaded in the pleadings and illinois because of his presence education job and everything that's the same thing that applied to me in new york now obviously my situation here in illinois is not that i purchased a vacation home and i come here for vacations no there is a significant presence and i admitted that in my pleadings now your honor i will review what you said about the requirement to vote  understand that if that's the case i will withdraw my ability to vote in illinois if that is the case based on the date that i signed it was i saying that in two thousand and eight to do register yourself well i will attempt to do but what's the relevance of that even if that was an erroneous statement what's the relevance of that to the diversity question actually it's done in the court didn't rely on that it did it anyway in determining that you were not a citizen of new york were it was written in and probably and it should be there because it's clearly erroneous the decision is right there was misread i appreciated if you could remove that and think you just used to broker letting me know about the requirements of voting i egan's position that the district court did not abuse this discretion by making the determination upon the facts presented by salem and in fact he is dulness out in the state of illinois it respectfully request that this court affirmed the lower state to that both public record and admissions that have been made in court support the lack of subject matter jurisdiction three say one has substantial physical and professional presence in the state of illinois and has had for some time or he has failed to show that there's been a sufficient physical presence in new york and finally as the court has indicated that the record the reference to what has been cited by the a r d c in the current intent he had since the convince the court that somewhat distant future that he intends to outweigh his current intent to relate so that it relates to domicile he points out that he travels back and forth to new york however if weekdays which probably relates to what we can say we can characterize them as work trips most importantly the last documentation that he provided was march th two thousand and sixteen which is clearly almost four years ago in respect to when he made some travel back and forth however yet he still relies on the fact that he believes he is dahmus out in the state of new york he hasn't provided any type of documentation and he actually stated before judge and jury or would that he in fact  thirteen and identified his home as in the state of illinois and that he also took a home office deduction on all of those tax returns at this time that he used his residence in illinois as law office his secondary office that he indicates on his letter hit his business card is actually a u p s address that is in the state of illinois and more importantly from two thousand and four into two thousand and fourteen salem provided his skill in the way address to the new york attorney regulatory regulation which was also a fact that was in that court decision as well in addition to that he indicated to judge would that his intent to reside here at least for three he's been here since two thousand and three w is to remain in illinois at least for three to four years or until his daughter finishes law school and so for those reasons we believe that he basically has had substantial evidence that he is physically present in the state of illinois his dhamma southfield he's been unable to actually satisfied that he has any physical presence as of any physical presence in the state of new york other than just traveling and visiting on overnight stays in respect to what i like to point out that he brought up wasn't galba he indicates that he believes that it distinguished that it distinguishes his case i believe that it supports his case like and doubtful what this court basically said was that  current intent he is actually intending to remain here for at least three to four years as he's indicated in port and at least until his daughter we don't know when that will happen he says in two she graduates from law school so with that being said your honor i would like to say i would like to thank you for some of that it is our position that for the reasons set forth in my argument this morning and more importantly because he is registered to vote he has know honest with respect to the review i don't believe there isn't a dispute with the facts that were alleged and the case law that i cited requires that you find with clear and convincing evidence that those facts show where i am dom that's the review that you would have to do now with counsel again it gets into fact finding issues that the lower court didn't hold an evidentiary hearing for example when she says the airline tickets are for short flights correct because i don't  if i am going to stay there long i would take a car to use it to travel so but the point is we didn't get into any fact finding and also there are many interactions with my school there with my project that shows an intent if i solicit something over there that's a perfect way of showing intent of what the individual wants and unless there's any other questions that's all i have thank you thank you very much the case is taken under