« Cut-and-paster-in-chief | Main | "There were a lot of WTF moments throughout that speech" »

Rahm Emanuel Got Unscrewed

rahm-funy.jpg


The other day I posted on the appeals court decision that removed Rahm Emanuel from the ballot in the race for Mayor of Chicago. There was a lot of discussion in the thread about what it meant to be a resident.

The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the matter and determined that, indeed, the appellate court screwed up.

They unanimously reversed the decision (PDF), and put Emanuel back on the ballot.

Here's the money quote:

So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear. This court's decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board's factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board's decision was not clearly erroneous.

So there you go...


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41008.

Comments (13)

One way or the other, Chica... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

One way or the other, Chicago is the one screwed - but they did it to themselves over a long period of time, like the state and California, so they have only themselves to blame in the end.

No federal bailouts for mismanaged cities, states, or corporations! (It only encourages others) . . .

"So there will be no mis... (Below threshold)
Geoffrey Britain:

"So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear. This court's decision is based on the following and only on the following:(1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century;"

Ok that's a good start. But then it gets confusing (at least for me)I think the best way to illustrate my difficulty is to move the courts second point to the last position:

"(3) the Board's factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board's decision was not clearly erroneous.",

To reiterate, so that we're on the same page; the court states that the laws clear and has been since the 19th century. The court states that the appellate boards facts were correct. And they weren't clearly wrong in their ruling...

BUT

"(2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law;"

Perhaps a lawyer can explain, how logically can the board be right on the facts, not wrong in their ruling but have no foundation in law...

Rahm Emanuel Got U... (Below threshold)
Rahm Emanuel Got Unscrewed
So now he's just another loose nut. . . . .... (rimshot)
There were three lower trib... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

There were three lower tribunals--the Board of Elections, the Circuit Court (trial court), and the Court of Appeals.

The board overruled the objections and put shithead on the ballot. The trial court affirmed this. The Court of Appeals overruled the trial court, found that the board had made a mistake, and said shithead could not be on the ballot.

So, the Supreme Court said that the board's decision was correct and that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in overruling the board.

Return to the Articl... (Below threshold)
Edward A. Schuster:


Return to the Article


January 27, 2011
Rham Emmanuel And The Rule Of Law (and its inapplicability to him)
Matthew S Harrison

Today the Illinois Supreme court dealt a blow to Chicagoans, and allowed Rahm Emmanuel to stay on the Mayoral ballot. In reading the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling, I am struck by the fact that they keep talking about his "intent." He left a bunch of personal belongings in the house he was renting out, as they state, because he intended to move back. Let's start there.


Having lived in Chicago for a long time, and knowing what property taxes are, I know he was paying a mint to keep his home. I also know that in his neighborhood, he could hedge the property tax payment and mortgage payment with an enormous monthly rent payment from his tenant. Furthermore, he had a place to store all of his stuff (in the attic), so he could avoid the giant storage facility rental fees. So, of course, he would keep his stuff there, thus eradicating the need for a large, very expensive place over in Georgetown for his family. Two birds with one stone there.


Additionally a bunch of his "friends" were quoted by the Chicago Sun Times as saying he told them he planned to move back to Chicago after eighteen months in DC....Did you get that, he planned to move back to Chicago. Does that not specifically imply that he moved away?


They also spoke about him leaving his car(s) registered with Illinois. Interestingly enough, it is about $60 dollars a year cheaper to register a car in Illinois than in Washington DC. Further to that, http://www.carinsurancequote.net/ says that the average cost to insure a car in Illinois is $1286/year, while the average cost in Washington, DC is $2592/year. So, by keeping his Chicago property and renting it out, he negated the property tax and mortgage payment. Considering the average price of a moderate home in the Ravenswood Manor neighborhood is about $700K, that is a big nut to crack. The average rental in that neighborhood goes for about $3K/month. Now, if you look for a moderately sized storage space to rent in Chicago, you are looking at $2500/month (within 10 blocks of his rental property). The way I see it, he has been minimizing motor vehicle taxes and insurance costs, and "kept" his "residence" in Illinois as a means to save money -- and not for the sake of seriously maintaining a residency status in the state.


Lastly, I looked at residency laws in Illinois. For voting, you must be a resident for thirty days. In other words, you move here, and get an Illinois Drivers' License, and you can vote. However, you must be here for nine (9) months in order to gain "in-state residency" to receive discounted tuition to our state colleges/universities. Further to that, the District of Columbia requires you to get a driver's license and transfer the title of your car to DC immediately, if you are going to live there for more than six(6) months out of the year. The reciprocity laws that applied to him when he was a member of Congress don't apply to him now, as he is not a member of Congress, an employee of a member of Congress, nor is he a diplomat. Mr. Emmanuel clearly stated he would be in DC for the duration of his kids' school year -- and that exceeds six (6) months. Thus, he is in violation of DC law. Furthermore, his residency status in DC being in question, he has also continually and wantonly violated Federal Election Laws.


It is plain to me, as it probably is to most non-progressives that this is another case of a Democrat avoiding taxes, fees, and scoffing at myriad laws, as he is not required to follow the law.


The State of Illinois has scoffed at its own laws. The Federal Election Commission is ignoring the admission in open court that Mr. Emmanuel made, pertinent to his voter fraud. The District of Columbia is ignoring their own laws where residency rules apply to those who move or reside there for more than six months in a year.


The Laws above broken, and the punishments added up, would land you or me in a county or state penal facility for roughly 10 years (1 year for voter fraud, 18 months for residency laws in Illinois, 18 months for DC, up to 5 years for Tax evasion in DC, , 5 years for defrauding his insurance company of the higher premium, and more). But, when Rahm Emmanuel did it, he had all of the previously printed ballots in Chicago destroyed, and a new one printed, with his name in the first position, so that he is the first name all voters see!


When do the Democrats have to follow the same laws I do?

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/rham_emmanuel_and_the_rule_of.html at January 28, 2011 - 05:36:36 AM CST

Told ya the other day he wo... (Below threshold)
G.:

Told ya the other day he would be on the ballot.

People like him are part of... (Below threshold)

People like him are part of the problem with politics in this country, not part of the solution. Send him his walking papers from public life. Don’t worry though! He’ll be able to get a job with his brother in an industry where weasels are still appreciated and indeed being a member of the family Mustelidae is a job requirement: as an A&R guy in the recording industry.

as they say, they have the ... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

as they say, they have the receipt for their Supreme court and they are going to get their moneys worth ...

I had no doubt whatsoever, ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I had no doubt whatsoever, and neither did Rahm that this would be overturned. It is Illinois. What did you expect. Only Louisiana makes that state seem clean. ww

Must say, Democrats sure ar... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Must say, Democrats sure are "flexible" when it comes to what the law says. Wonder if the court would have been as "flexible" if Rahm had an (R) after his name?

Forget it Jake, it's Chitow... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Forget it Jake, it's Chitown.

No, this is the money quote... (Below threshold)
MjM:

No, this is the money quote:

Indeed, as its discussion of section 3.1–10–5(d) reflects, the entire appellate court opinion can be read as nothing more than an extended exercise in question begging, in which the appellate court sets forth the question to be answered as what it means to “reside” (No. 1–11–0033, slip op. at 11), and concludes that it means to have “actually resided”

Imagine that!

Side Bar: The ISC has just loop-holed every residency rule in every municipality in the state of Illinois. Cops and teachers should be thrilled.

Chicago deserves him, so I'... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Chicago deserves him, so I'm glad they're getting what they deserve.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy