good morning first case are called the docket today wednesday january eighteenth two thousand and twelve is agenda number five case number one eleven nine twenty eight eileen jackson versus board of election commissioners and also for the scranton i'm interested in the relief that you're seeking and i believe in your brief you talk about if we agree with your argument a special election but then cite no authority for that so my question is if we do agree with your argument how do we why wouldn't a request and remedy of a special election and why wouldn't it be waived in light of the fact that you didn't give this court any legal support for that that the importance of this case has to do with what is actually deemed an old city but you've raised some other issues including the fact that she received a no indebtedness letter from the city  is that should the case hinge on that the fact that the city said the reason no debt i think that's just in and oh and one more question following up on justice garmisch question is it does it matter i think it's more important for ballot access and f l public interest the people least be made at least know that there is a dead bolt and they have opposite security before they are not allow county debt in addition i we believe that the it went to the appellate court and india color court acting as solomon they decided to split the baby and they kept both on that this could reach back on its own motion without any appeal to the good morning may please the court and council my name is james p i represent the apple we object to in this case eileen jackson t and this was due to the county no that's not correct the county is a collector for the municipality the county as the agent of the municipality could file a suit or take a collection action against the taxpayer but they are not the real party in interest real party in interest remains a government agency if you look at the tax code justice thomas i think it makes it very clear the relationship between the cook county treasurer as a county collector and the various governmental bodies including the city of chicago the tax code of thirty five by all c i s two hundred slash one point one talks about the cook county treasurer collect clean taxes and  the treasured pursuant to section one thousand ish thirty five of the tax code is the ex official collector for all the government agencies located within the county however the taxing bodies are the ones pursuant to section eighteen desh lifting that levy the tax there would be no collection by the county unless the city of chicago levy bit tax came to the counties have now collect us on our behalf and then  is itemized and collected on behalf of each taxing body so the plain reading then do to the municipality you're saying this is it was due to the city and that the county with the that's absolutely correct to clutch an agent even though in common parlance as we look at the wording of the statutory write the check would have been written to the correct but those funds are actually from the moment the check is written the proportion which are those one where it's collected and held by the collector on behalf of the municipality before it's distributed to the other government agencies but it says very clearly distributed to the government agencies or authorities in title to receive the same and they are even push i want to section twenty dish one forty of the tax code these funds are held in ask what is a segregated account for the various government bodies so that no time was a big county take ownership of this money the county is only a collection and no not property taxes they were paid the county collector who was the collection agency on behalf of the city as well as and numerous other government agencies in the city could go after the plaintiff through the county collect they're authorized agent there'd be no direct collection national justice book but there would be however a procedure where if somebody doesn't pay their property taxes the county collector is the agent for the city and the other  government agencies would institute collection action against the taxpayer and it gets very clear the bills that are part of the record here in fact are required by statute to itemize on that bill the various governmental agencies and the amounts of money government agency is due to collapse from their property tax levy and on this case we have a situation where the candidate here testified that she saw this bill she was on who paid the bill right on the bill there well the text here is on notice when they get the property tax bill that they should not be taking that homeowners exemption so that the taxpayer knew in twenty weight and twenty nine when these bills became do that this money was due and chose not to pay it chose not to go in and say wait a minute there's been a mistake here i don't live at five fifty five dollar five fifty two lawler therefore i'm not entitle to that there's no notice requirement justice thomas in the statute in the municipal code the municipal code is very clear  stenson versus chicago board of election case which came out of the same election cycle addressed that and said that it cannot be a person who is in a room or is on a debt to the municipality basically has to do their due diligence and the statute says nothing about a notice requirement or to the candidate it's up to the candidate to make sure they have their house in order and that they have paid all the obligations that they're required to pay to the municipality when the i mean shoots you never received a bill for any alleged error in the homeowner's exemption until december sixth when is it oh well you should know that sometime in the future when you get a bill when she got and also talks about she made the back payment so she was aware that these taxes were due she was aware that these homeowners exemptions were not taken pursuant to the law and the desmonte have been know to the city from the time the tax bill issue types parking water administrative hearing to inspection fees cost recovery and tax licensing it doesn't address the property tax so this was not a complete analysis of what the candidate might all the candidates to lead to do their due diligence for instance the candidates this past cycle also would have gone to the city clerk to determine if they owed anything for things such as dog licenses vehicle stickers so a lot of from the department and that's why you have to go to several sources sometimes to determine if you if you are indebted to the nyssa palate a revenue only has a certain area of tax or revenue collection for the city of chicago as i said the city clerk for instance collects for vehicle stickers dog licenses things like that so construction type of the situation and this court's decision cycle said as much because the same arguments made by by mr sink is hey i only owed one hundred dollars and as soon as the objection was filed mentioning the fact they owed one hundred dollars i ran over to the city clerk's office tried to pay it but they would take my money but what secret says is that at the time the nomination papers were filed that that's the kodak moment that's when you take the snapshot and at that point you were either you know she was the one who paid the bill she saw the bill the bill on its face shows that these homeowners exemptions were taken or were wrongfully taken and that the city of chicago was deprived revenue was one of the taxing bodies numerate adult knowledge is fulfilled at the get a refund but the obligations to on the taxpayer to pay those taxes at the time they're due mr nally i've got to actually have multiple part question here if you can kind of help me through this in your brief the standard review you talk about really only addresses if there's a legal question so my first part of the question questions are these one what's the standard review on fact determinations not appear to questions manifest weight and this is an industry review out of the looked well board decision is that right that's correct can you help me i mean the threshold question this is the second part of the statute talks about hill's ability based on their in the payment of a text or other indebtedness due to the mis appellee so to get to the second question of you know whether it should go to the city or the county if that's an eligible is a threshold question we have to have presented to us  fighting effect that there is no barriers on a payment of tax or other and deadness student is a fallacy is that correct is that the threshold or not no i don't think it's a threshold here because i don't think the facts are in dispute well ok show me this i mean i made a look at the wrong thing but the electoral board decision has a finding of fact in paragraph twenty and page though this is in your opponent's brief that's labeled as a twenty three fundamental finding of a ridge before we even proceed to step two i think i think if you look at the electoral votes decision what they said was that as far as property tax that bets a debt of the assessor they actually use the term assessor which would be incorrect as far as that it would and what i'm trying to understand too is what is the significance of finding number twenty paragraph twenty if that says there's no debt and then in adopting the the decision of the recommended decision of the hearing officer which the decision did candidate did file with this quote an emergency motion to stay the word of the appellate court and also in that emergency motion asking for the election to be delayed or that a special election be held later on in this court on february twenty third twenty eleven where it was said very clearly that the principal residence was occupied in january first of that year and now they're coming in as a result of the tennessee being terminated for failure to pay the property taxes that were due and asking this court for relief and from an equitable standpoint i don't think that that's that's proper well you can correct me if i'm wrong but this is not proceeding iniquities it's not proceeding in equity but instead to the extent that they would be seeking equitable really such and it's who sixty the bit if it from the wrong doing the candidate here the candidate failed to pay the property taxes that were all owed and now is saying despite the fact that i failed to do that i'm asking this court for relief that but i'm seeking the relief that i'm seeking from the cordon on the arguments today case number one eleven nine twenty eight eileen jackson vs the board of election commissioners in the senate chicago is taken under advisement as agenda number five