Affidavit Form Illinois: Fill & Download for Free

This is a paradox that can be fixed…it’s just…well, once you fix it, the movie is only 15 minutes long….Note: See UPDATE added at the end:UPDATE: Wow, in about a week, almost 3,800 upvotes! Wow! For someone who’s not Quora Famous I’m dumbfounded.There are a lot of people who have cast aspersions on if this is true. Certainly, the claim in the second panel that implies that a religious institution NEVER pays taxes is off. There are situations in which they will have to.But the specific question in mind: would a Catholic-run orphanage in Chicago (and we can presume there are no other duties they fulfill) pay property taxes of the type described as the $5,000 owed?No they would not.The Surly Subgroup (a tax blog) took a look at thisIllinois, like many states, exempts certain property from property taxation, including property used exclusively for religious purposes or as orphanages.[fn2] And the property that was assessed?I mean, the Saint Helen of the Blessed Shroud Orphanage probably hits both of those criteria.In most cases, to maintain the exemption, the owner of exempt property must file an annual affidavit with the chief county assessment officer stating that there has been no change in the exempt purpose or use of the property.[fn3] So maybe the problem was that the Order failed to file its affidavit?Nope. It turns out that there are a handful of exceptions to the annual affidavit requirement, and one of those exceptions is for property used for religious purposes or for orphanages. So the Sisters didn’t miss a filing deadline.[fn4]So far, then, it’s looking like X-Ray was right, and that the major plot driver is a big goof. But we have one more shot. It turns out that there’s a condition on the religious and orphanage exemption: the property cannot be used with a “view to profit.”[fn5] If it is being used with a view to profit, it doesn’t qualify for the tax exemption.Moreover, Illinois courts have clarified that the burden of proof is on the property owner to demonstrate that the property is not being used with a view to profit, and that view to profit defeats an underlying religious purpose. And it defeats that religious purpose even if the profit is ultimately used for a charitable purpose.[fn6]So was the Blues Brothers MacGuffin a goof? Um, probably, yes.Furthermore, one has to wonder — with the orphanage being funded by 1) the Archdiocese of Chicago, 2) the Vatican’s various charities, or, 3) some combo of both, would they even really have to sweat $5,000?? (and yes, I realize it’s $15,000 in today's money. Still)In 1980, the Archdiocese of Chicago operated something around 400+ schools in the area. To say nothing of the churches and cathedrals they also had. It stretches credulity that the orphanage would be so strapped. (Now yes, in recent years, for various reasons, the Catholic Church’s finances have suffered and many churches and schools have been closed in Chicago and just in general. But again, we’re talking about 1980.)Also, the orphanage has been around for at least a couple of decades since Jake and Elwood grew up there. How would they have missed a simple accounting detail like that? Also, again it’s never made clear, but the Church would usually own the land the property is on, outright.At the end of the day, the reason for the tax bill basically boils down to Cinemasin’s favorite line “So the movie can happen”.

First of all, my condolences to anyone in a situation like this.The first thing you should probably do is consider whether at least one of your parents would be willing to help you get an ID and otherwise integrate with mainstream society. If your parents prevented you from getting a birth certificate, kept you out of school and never took you to a doctor or dentist, I wouldn’t count on their cooperation with this. But if at least one of them has suddenly realized how difficult your life will be without documentation of your identity, maybe you can get help from that parent.Without parental cooperation, you’ll almost certainly need help from an adult who has known you for a long time, ideally since you were born. Is there a neighbor who could help? What about aunts and uncles?Without your parents’ cooperation, you probably can’t get the ID until you turn 18, but you’d be wise to start making plans sooner, since this won’t be easy to do.The U.S. Department of State allows for a “birth affidavit” to be used in a passport application as proof of place of birth when no record exists: https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds10.pdfThat affidavit could be filled out by an aunt or uncle.I’m not sure about the state of Illinois’ requirements. They probably do have some means of providing a state ID card, but it won’t be easy. Your local police department might be able to help with this.I would suggest you contact the Job Corps as well. This is a partnership between employers, labor unions and the U.S. government that takes in young people, gives them a place to live, schooling and medical care and teaches them skilled trades. If you go to them and cooperate with the program, in the short term you’ll get housing, food and medical care; in the long term you’ll have a high school diploma plus job skills that will allow you to earn a comfortable income. I’m confident that they can sort out the issues of getting ID. You’d doubtlessly need your parents to sign off on joining the Job Corps now, but that won’t matter once you turn 18.Thanks for asking me to answer and best of luck with this.

Most Mormons don't care for the simple reason that we don't believe Smith was perfect.Neither do we have reason to believe that other prophets called by God have been perfect men. Indeed, we recognize that only Jesus was perfect and even he was charged and found guilty.But let's explore the article here, case by case.1826, New York: have you read this case? Nevermind it's uncorroborated story that magically showed up 50 years later when attitudes against the church were decidedly negative and Smith had been dead for 30 years—the entire matter testifies that Smith led men to a treasure chest that they confirm existed but that they could not reach because it kept getting deeper and deeper. They charged him criminally because they could not reach it. Fine: $2.68, most of which went to the witnesses for their testimony. I'm inclined to ignore this entirely as made up hogwash, but if one wants to believe the testimony, one has to accept he was a bona fide miracle worker.[1][1][1][1]1830, New York (twice): acquitted both times of disorderly conduct.1837, Ohio: Illegal banking. Guilty, fined $1000. At this time in America, lots of private banks sprouted up. This bank failed in part because Smith and other principals couldn't find it in their heart to foreclose on poor people. No good deed goes unpunished. This is the only guilty verdict recorded that sticks.1837, Ohio: conspiracy to commit murder supposedly related to the failed bank. Dismissed.1838, Ohio: Bank fraud related to the above. Smith flees to Missouri and the case is dropped.1838, Missouri: Threats. A Grand Jury failed to indict him.1838-9, Missouri: Treason. At this time, the immigrating Saints caused a lot of political pressure against the Missouri establishment especially in the Kansas City area. Tempers flared and allegations against all sides were rampant. Smith and others in this complaint were jailed over the winter in substandard housing and treated inhumanely by their guards. Much has been written of it and I've seen the jail myself. The charge of treason is the only one that can't be bailed out of, and it was hoped by political and religious opponents that with Smith in jail, the church would collapse and the political pressures would go away.That didn't happen. After several months, Smith and company were allowed to escape to Illinois and never saw trial. The rest of the (innocent) Saints were “exterminated,” which in this case means “forced to leave the state and leave their belongings behind by the governor on threat of death.” it is the single most onerous moment in Missouri state history.1841, Illinois: Fleeing from Missouri. Freed by judicial order.1842, Missouri: conspiracy to murder Governor Boggs. Illinois refused to extradite.1843, Missouri: Treason (again): Missouri sheriffs apprehend Smith in Illinois, are arrested by an Illinois sheriff for arresting outside their jurisdiction, Illinois judge frees Smith.You may be seeing a pattern here. In the early years of the Republic, on the frontier, justice wasn't so defined as we have it now. Anyone could swear an affidavit, no matter how frivolous, and deputies would be sent out to harass people often with no substance to the case, but just enough wasted time to cause hardship.In 1844, Smith announced his candidacy for President of the United States. An unabashed abolitionist, he was extremely unpopular with a certain subset of Americans. Former friends turned foes over the failed bank and other Missouri shenanigans led to a lot of animosity directly against Smith and significantly against the Saints in Nauvoo. This culminated in the Nauvoo Expositor incident, in which the city council authorized then-mayor Smith to destroy the press the paper had been printed on. This led to—1844, Illinois: Perjury, Fornication, Polygamy (Bigamy). These were the charges—libelous, perhaps—that the Expositor was supposedly exposing. The court postponed the case until the next court season. The case was dropped upon his death.1844, Illinois: Inciting Riot. This arose directly from the Expositor destruction. Smith surrendered and was granted bail. The case was dropped upon his death.1844, Illinois: Treason. Immediately upon granting bail, a complaint was lodged for treason against the state. Again, since Treason doesn't have bail conditions, his enemies knew exactly where to find him. A mob stormed the jailhouse the next day and assassinated him and his brother. The case was dropped.So: scam artist? Hearsay and slander and the court agrees. Illegal banker? Guilty and punishment paid. Traitor? Inciting riot, polygamy and conspiracy to commit murder? Never convicted and most charges dismissed outright. Harassed by enemies intent on killing him? Absolutely.I judge him to be too kind-hearted and trusting of others, of which I am also guilty.If you want to impugn a man, don't do it over a possible $2.68 charge. That's just sad.Edited to include the footnote regarding the 1826 trial.Footnotes[1] https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=byusq[1] https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=byusq[1] https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=byusq[1] https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=byusq