the question what this case is all about is what the rule of law is going to be at the end of the day this case is beyond and above the people involved what is the rule going to be for policeman fireman sanitation workers and candidates for office when you apply for a job in chicago or for that matter at any misspellings fair going away has a residency requirement whether their job be mayor or policeman what will count your physical presence and your permit abode and all those life characteristics that we know it poured into the foundation of your boat or or is it what you believe in your mind your internal intent if you i would submit to you that if you don't have the container the foundation the of both then you have nowhere to put the other elements of residence we we will then have a situation of apartments being rented by city employees and then in turn running them out and moving to the suburbs all with the internal intents to return which may or may not happen so this case is really about specifically applying the ninety one uncontested stipulated facts and the testimony to the ethical sketch and applying  what we know about the what we know that residence means permanent of the principal dwelling place of a person we know the true elements are necessary physical presence and the tenth remain there with the case the case is if they have traveled to the modern era through the park the hood cases that deal with residency all deal with the intent to that sort really deal with cases where people have two residences to residences and the courts have to determine through all of the facts which is there permit of a boat  a temper seventh twenty at the very important day at that point mr emanuel had lived in d c for twenty months his family had lived in d c for sixteen months virtually all of their return to a permanent about it in the in the or is connected to the first part of the sentence saying that you don't have a place to return to your intent really means nothing but work in washington did not abandon their homes they have their homes here they come back they stay in their homes they have a place to return to so so to answer your question if the home had not been abandoned thought because he i'm hypothetically probably could not afford to keep a plaything and washing and to keep his family here and to maintain his residence an exception to the requirements of three years three vs one requires prominent place of abode intention to return and you must have been here to start off out this is an exception from this it or this precinct or district isn't the business of the united states well i would i would answer that by saying two things one there's a real question as to whether being chief of staff is business of the united that now simply because he did not reside in this alley for one year prior to the election he had no place to reside here he testified he came back or maybe three times the state health or else he granted he least his trauma as rental property received five thousand dollars a month and he his wife his children never went back there during the entire time they were in washington they still are not back there he says they're still in washington until at least june thirtieth of was home less why is it that he could not still reside in the city of chicago and the light of his stated intentions because he was not homeless all the facts that i was going to get to relative to what his declarations and what the evidence showed was that he was residing in washington you see his income tax returns his voter registration card that was bounced from hermitage to washington the back door of elections his homestead exemption he was not homeless he was living with his family as he to clear a plethora of facts on the other side of that as well in terms of his connections with the city of chicago that he voted here that he paid also fell from the questions that you are very familiar with the extensive factual findings that were made by the board of election commissioners before before they finally approved a candidate a this is an easy case i and then he went on to say why of the chairman of the board at the conclusion of that hearing made some other comments that i think  legal residence in terms of i'm all of relating it to the to the obligations of citizenship and the rights of citizenship when you're a resident iraq for your living in chicago if you're visiting in chicago just like mr be reading the cases for example by some of the on some of the all the cases that we cite a person can go away for years that is its intent is still to remain in chicago and  still be a resident of illinois and a resident of chicago and even though he doesn't have a residence here he can still be legally a resident of chicago i mean even though he doesn't have a structure here that he could go back  as a hotel they concede that statement they concede that if you believe carter has not been a unless you can i convince the tiger has been overruled then the straw man you are forgetting the statute about united essentially what carter was saying was a permanent place of abode means a lot of place it doesn't mean a particular structure that that you go into and that you have a place to sleep it can mean that you have at one point while it can it can be by saying that by the other elements of citizenship so in that situation you paid you continue to pay taxes there you continue to own real estate there you register your car there your boat there position in name municipality that that is a higher standard then to be a voter which we have already established only requires thirty days reside in the municipality where that he is choosing to represent if he did not live in that place for the year that is required and you will recall previously this was required by the illinois constitution and not by statute it did not change and still one year the residence requirement is satisfied somewhere else in another state and they made it during their wife with them and they may bring a car with them and i mean he just he just giving them a belt and the spenders but when you look at and you've talked about it earlier no matter what all this debate abo presidents and and this question all of this debate is completely academic if you determine that three point to a prize there is absolutely no question that election i would submit i would submit to the justices that if this case was not about who it's about and about the office we're talking about this case would even be here today this is just this is a very clean clear cut residency case that we try to selection lawyers every election cycle the man the man got some good advice and rented his his place out he didn't have a place to come back to he he didn't absolutely correct there is no need for the exception t for military duty if it's all about intent you can go for fifty years as long as you have an attempt to come back after you've retired the army when you're there resident you can run for office that i would just fairly say you cannot compare service to the united states of our soldiers to chief of staff of a president united states not mind that when you make one hundred seventy thousand dollars a year versus dodging and well argue this case will be taken under advisement this court is adjour