Breaking: Illinois Supreme Court Orders Rahm Emanuel Back on Ballot

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So, let me get this straight. Whether a person is a resident for voting purposes is irrelevant to whether a person is a resident for candidacy purposes but whether a person is a resident for tax purposes is relevant?

Doesn't make much sense, Yurt.

there is a separate statute strictly for candidates...do you deny this?

if the legislature of illinois intended them to be the same, there would be no need for separate statutes, your desperation to save rahm is hilarious, you will go so far as to defend his lies, he had to file a distinct and seperate tax return, but you want to claim it was a "mistake"

http://tax.illinois.gov/TaxForms/IncmCurrentYear/Individual/Schedule-NR.pdf

no way he made a mistake ^

 

[Damocles]

I used the voter requirements because I could easily locate them just to make the point that it is perfectly reasonable for a court to conclude that Rahm is a resident of Chicago.



So the parties define residency how they wish for party offices. How is residency determined for candidates for state or federal office?

Not "how they wish", they define it agreeable to the state. Laws governing residence for a candidate are different than laws governing residence for voter registration.

And I was supporting the idea that the court could, depending on the law and how it defines "residency", definitely decide that Rahm was a "resident". It's also very possible that the laws in Illinois actually do not include Rahm's definition of "resident" and that even the most favorable court won't be able to squeeze orange juice from a lemon.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Could you link that up for me because it seems very much at odds with this:

I don't see squat in there about living there for one day more than six months. In fact, the statute says that you can leave for as long as you like so long as you have a present intention of returning after the departure.

Given that, I find it odd that you cannot understand how Rahm could be considered to be a resident of Chicago. If it were Denver instead of Chicago there doesn't seem to be much question that, at least for voting purposes, Rahm would be a resident of Denver under Colorado's election laws.

I think the difference is in the fact that Rahm rented his place out. Showing a sign that he did not intend to return. I think had he not rented it out he would have been ok.

 

[Bonestorm]

lol...of course you would think that, his original intention and SIGNED statement is just a simple "mistake"....



he knew exactly what he was doing and he lied about the mistake, but you will apologize for your dems no matter what they do

Actually, I'm basing my assessment on statement of facts in the appeals court opinion. I don't really care what he said or signed. Based on the facts as found by the Board of Election Commissioners which the appeals court credited, for tax purposes Rahm was a full time Illinois resident. It is impossible to conclude otherwise unless you think the appeals court's statement of facts is erroneous.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I used the voter requirements because I could easily locate them just to make the point that it is perfectly reasonable for a court to conclude that Rahm is a resident of Chicago.



So the parties define residency how they wish for party offices. How is residency determined for candidates for state or federal office?

Just an fyi... if Rahm were to run for Mayor of Denver, he would also face a one year residency requirement.

 

[Bonestorm]

I think the difference is in the fact that Rahm rented his place out. Showing a sign that he did not intend to return. I think had he not rented it out he would have been ok.

I don't see how leasing his place for a year shows an intent not to return. At most, it shows an intent not to return during the term of the lease.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't see how leasing his place for a year shows an intent not to return. At most, it shows an intent not to return during the term of the lease.

Obviously I am not a lawyer. Just parroting what I have heard.

You should be familiar with that tactic

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't see how leasing his place for a year shows an intent not to return. At most, it shows an intent not to return during the term of the lease.

but seriously, in my opinion.... it would turn that into an investment property and thus not a primary residence. I think that is the difference. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Bonestorm]

Not "how they wish", they define it agreeable to the state. Laws governing residence for a candidate are different than laws governing residence for voter registration.

Well, that was my question. What are the laws governing residence for a candidate?

And I was supporting the idea that the court could, depending on the law and how it defines "residency", definitely decide that Rahm was a "resident". It's also very possible that the laws in Illinois actually do not include Rahm's definition of "resident" and that even the most favorable court won't be able to squeeze orange juice from a lemon.

OK.

 

[NOVA]

The rules and regulations will be applied in whatever fashion is deemed necessary for the Democrats to accomplish their goals....
The double standard is alive and well throughout the land....

 

[tinfoil]

So, let me get this straight. Whether a person is a resident for voting purposes is irrelevant to whether a person is a resident for candidacy purposes but whether a person is a resident for tax purposes is relevant?

Doesn't make much sense, Yurt.

You're an idiot. And a lame sophist.
Hard to believe you support such obvious carpet-bagging.
You are truly an idiot

 

[Bonestorm]

You're an idiot. And a lame sophist.
Hard to believe you support such obvious carpet-bagging.
You are truly an idiot

Carpetbagging. That's hilarious.

 

[Damocles]

The rules and regulations will be applied in whatever fashion is deemed necessary for the Democrats to accomplish their goals....
The double standard is alive and well throughout the land....

The thing of it is, even if Rahm isn't on the ballot a Democrat is going to win. It's silly to speculate otherwise.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Carpetbagging. That's hilarious.

Not really... it is too pathetic to be funny. It makes one want to cry.


That said, I do think it is the renting of the property that screwed him. Turning a residence into an investment property is likely going to hose him. Just my opinion.

 

[Damocles]

I also don't understand why I should care if Chicago wants to elect Rahm as their Mayor. It just doesn't mean much to me. It's like worrying about who is the Mayor of Detroit. It just isn't that impacting to my life.

 

[Bonestorm]

I also don't understand why I should care if Chicago wants to elect Rahm as their Mayor. It just doesn't mean much to me. It's like worrying about who is the Mayor of Detroit. It just isn't that impacting to my life.

Yeah, I don't really care either. I just think it's an interesting question and issue.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I also don't understand why I should care if Chicago wants to elect Rahm as their Mayor. It just doesn't mean much to me. It's like worrying about who is the Mayor of Detroit. It just isn't that impacting to my life.

Its only news because Rahm is Obama's and Clinton's boy....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Actually, I'm basing my assessment on statement of facts in the appeals court opinion. I don't really care what he said or signed. Based on the facts as found by the Board of Election Commissioners which the appeals court credited, for tax purposes Rahm was a full time Illinois resident. It is impossible to conclude otherwise unless you think the appeals court's statement of facts is erroneous.

of course you don't care, this time, they support you

but you will scorch the earth if the so called facts don't support your POV....

its hilarious how you now wuss out on his signed seperate and distincted tax form....i have no idea if the issue was ever addressed, but you are gleefully willing to assume it has, because it supports your POV

when the facts may not support your POV, you are quick to question them and you are quick to decry a bad judgment by a court, but here....oh no

i honestly thought you might be capable of true debate, but you aren't, you only parrot others thoughts when they fit your POV. you can't even begin to explain how rahm is eligible, yet you can so easily dismiss that he is not eligible.

 

[Bonestorm]

of course you don't care, this time, they support you

but you will scorch the earth if the so called facts don't support your POV....

its hilarious how you now wuss out on his signed seperate and distincted tax form....i have no idea if the issue was ever addressed, but you are gleefully willing to assume it has, because it supports your POV

when the facts may not support your POV, you are quick to question them and you are quick to decry a bad judgment by a court, but here....oh no

i honestly thought you might be capable of true debate, but you aren't, you only parrot others thoughts when they fit your POV. you can't even begin to explain how rahm is eligible, yet you can so easily dismiss that he is not eligible.

You make little sense. All I'm doing here, my little friend, is applying the facts as found by the appeals court to the definition of "resident" under the tax code.

Here are the relevant facts as found by the Board of Election Commissioners and credited by the Court of Appeals:

The candidate was born in Chicago and, in December 1998, purchased a Chicago home (the Hermitage house), which he still owns. The candidate lived with his family in that home from 1998 through January 2009. On January 2, 2009, the candidate, who had up to then served as a member of the United States House of Representatives elected from the district that included the Hermitage house, resigned his office in order to serve in Washington, D.C., as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States. After traveling to Washington, D.C., he and his spouse purchased additional land adjoining their Chicago property.

From January through May 2009, the candidate lived in an "in- law apartment" in Washington, D.C., while his family remained in the Hermitage house. From June 2009 until October 1, 2010, the candidate, and his family, lived in a Washington, D.C., house (the Woodley House) that was leased for the term spanning June 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011. The family received their mail at the Woodley house and moved most of their clothes and personal belongings to Washington, D.C. They did, however, leave behind at the Hermitage house several larger household items, including televisions, a piano, and a bed, as well as several personal possessions such as family heirlooms and books. The candidate’s Hermitage house was leased to another family for the term of September 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011.

At all relevant times, including the time he was in Washington, D.C., the candidate continued to pay property taxes for the Hermitage house, continued to hold an Illinois driver’s license listing the Hermitage house as his address, continued to list the Hermitage house address on his personal checks, and continued to vote with the Hermitage house as his registered voting address. He did, however, pay income tax in 2009 and 2010 to both Washington, D.C., and Illinois.

On October 1, 2010, the candidate resigned his position of Chief of Staff to the President of the United States and entered into a lease to live in an apartment located on Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago from October 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. He has lived in that apartment since October 1, 2010. In his testimony, the candidate explained that he had always expected to serve as Chief of Staff to the President for approximately 18 to 24 months before returning to live in the Hermitage house.

This is how the Illinois tax code defines part-year resident and resident:

(17) Part-year resident. The term “part-year resident” means a person who became a resident during the taxable year or ceased to be a resident during the taxable year. Under Section 1501(a)(20)(A)(ii) residence commences with presence in this State for other than a temporary or transitory purpose and ceases with absence from this State for other than a temporary or transitory purpose. Under 1501 (a)(20)(A)(ii) residence commences with the establishment of domicile in this State and ceases with the establishment of domicile in another state.

(20) Resident. The term “resident” means:

(A) an individual (I) who is in this State for other than a temporary or transitory purpose during the taxable year; or (ii) who is domiciled in this State but is absent from the State for a temporary or transitory purpose during the taxable year…

We can all agree that Rahm was a resident so to become a part-year resident, he would have to establish a domicile in another state. Likewise, for Rahm to be a resident he must have a domicile in Illinois and be absent for a temporary or transitory purpose. Given the testimony credited above, Rahm was absent for a temporary or transitory purpose because he always intended to return to Chicago. So, how is "domicile" defined:

Domicile. Domicile has been defined as the place where an individual has his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, the place to which he intends to return whenever he is absent. It is the place in which an individual has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and his family, not for a mere special or limited purpose, but with the present intention of making a permanent home, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home. Another definition of “domicile” consistent with the above is the place where an individual has fixed his habitation and has a permanent residence without any present intention of permanently removing therefrom. An individual can at any one time have but one domicile. If an individual has acquired a domicile at one place, he retains that domicile until he acquires another elsewhere. Thus, if an individual, who has acquired a domicile in California, for example, comes to Illinois for a rest or vacation or on business or for some other purpose, but intends either to return to California or to go elsewhere as soon as his purpose in Illinois is achieved, he retains his domicile in California and does not acquire a domicile in Illinois. Likewise, an individual who is domiciled in Illinois and who leaves the state retains his Illinois domicile as long as he has the definite intention
of returning to Illinois. On the other hand, an individual, domiciled in California, who comes to Illinois with the intention of remaining indefinitely and with no fixed intention of returning to California loses his California domicile and acquires an Illinois domicile the moment he enters the state. Similarly, an individual domiciled in Illinois loses his Illinois domicile:

1) by locating elsewhere with the intention of establishing the new location as his domicile, and

2) by abandoning any intention of returning to Illinois.

Again, applying the facts above to this definition of domicile, Rahm is domiciled in Chicago because although he was absent from Chicago for a period of time, he intended to return to Chicago and did not establish a domicile in Washington D.C. Because he never intended to locate in D.C. with the intention of establishing it as his domicile and never abandoned any intention of returning to Illinois he did not lose his Chicago domicile and is a resident of Chicago, not a part time resident of Chicago.

I think a the Illinois Supreme Court will adopt a similar analysis and rule that Rahm never lost his Chicago residency and satisfied the one year residency requirement.

Happy Yurt, you ankle-biting fuck.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

UOTE=NigelTufnel;765312]You make little sense. All I'm doing here, my little friend, is applying the facts as found by the appeals court to the definition of "resident" under the tax code.

not true, the appellate court did not discuss his tax filing. do you really want me to link AGAIN the tax form rahm filed? you won't ask because it shows you're wrong, so i will post it again:

Nonresident and Part-Year Resident
Computation of Illinois Tax

^ the form heading has that font, if not bigger....you're proposing that rahm "missed" that and/or made a "mistake"

no really, that is your position....funny as it is

Here are the relevant facts as found by the Board of Election Commissioners and credited by the Court of Appeals:

nothing in your facts changes my point. nothing about his tax admission....and only their OPINION as to the conclusion of law. hopefully you are educated enough to know about "experts" giving conclusions as to the ultimate question of law. though i suspect, you ignore everything, unless it suits your POV.

This is how the Illinois tax code defines part-year resident and resident:

your point?

We can all agree that Rahm was a resident so to become a part-year resident, he would have to establish a domicile in another state. Likewise, for Rahm to be a resident he must have a domicile in Illinois and be absent for a temporary or transitory purpose. Given the testimony credited above, Rahm was absent for a temporary or transitory purpose because he always intended to return to Chicago. So, how is "domicile" defined:

wrong again, no, we can't "all agree" rahm was a resident...stop being simple, really. you're confusing domicile dungheap....really you are. you started this off with the idiotic notion that "reside" doesn't mean "live"

and yet you still continue your ignorance

Again, applying the facts above to this definition of domicile, Rahm is domiciled in Chicago because although he was absent from Chicago for a period of time, he intended to return to Chicago and did not establish a domicile in Washington D.C. Because he never intended to locate in D.C. with the intention of establishing it as his domicile and never abandoned any intention of returning to Illinois he did not lose his Chicago domicile and is a resident of Chicago, not a part time resident of Chicago.

I think a the Illinois Supreme Court will adopt a similar analysis and rule that Rahm never lost his Chicago residency and satisfied the one year residency requirement.

Happy Yurt, you ankle-biting fuck

continue ignoring the law dungheap.....and btw.....stop yapping at me in your posts.....toe licker