Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat
The basic upshot is that the appeals court deemed the Board and the Circuit Court to have confused the legal principles of "domicile" and "residence:"

...it is elemental that domicile and residence are not synonymous." Pope v. Board of Election Commissioners, 370 Ill. 196, 202, 18 N.E.2d 214 (1938). As the supreme court further explained in Pope, the legal concept of "residence" requires a permanent abode.

15 posted on 01/24/2011 10:34:44 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: mvpel

We need to get Eric “affirmative action” Holder on this, right away.


45 posted on 01/24/2011 4:53:17 PM PST by jivin gene (Breakin' up is hard to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: mvpel
...the appeals court deemed the Board and the Circuit Court to have confused the legal principles of "domicile" and "residence:"

In other words, the Chicago house he rented out for 2 years (locked basement room with personal possessions notwithstanding) is a "domicile" not a residence. Poor Rahmbo. Welcome to the ranks of the unemployed.

64 posted on 01/24/2011 9:13:04 PM PST by abbyg55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson