SJC Thomas didn't disclose $680,000 (to wife) from conservative think tanks

[fed3r2198]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1, 2011

The words "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" are famously chiseled above the main portico of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. But it appears that Justice Clarence Thomas is instead receiving special treatment under the law, says the watchdog group, www.ProtectOurElections.org.

Evidence is mounting that Justice Thomas violated federal law from 1989 through the present by failing to report his wife's annual salary by checking "NONE" on the box for "Non-Investment Income" on judicial AO 10 Financial Disclosure Reports. Seven of those forms can be found at http://protectourelections.org/index.php?q=node/105.

According to the "self-initiated amendment" letters signed by Thomas on Friday, January 21, 2011 and stamped as "RECEIVED" by the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on Financial Disclosure on Saturday, January 22, 2011, the Justice failed to reveal sources of spousal income even on his original disclosure forms during his contentious 1991 confirmation hearings. ProtectOurElections.org received copies of those amendments and posted them on its website at http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/clarence_Thomas-FD_amendments.pdf.

One of the amendments hastily filed last week by Thomas states that he "inadvertently omitted" spousal income from as far back as 1989 "due to a misunderstanding of filing instructions." Virginia Thomas' income from The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, totaling $686,589 from 2003 to 2009 was omitted from the forms entirely, as was her Heritage Foundation employment from 1998 to 2003 and other sources of "non-investment income" from as early as 1989.

The forms that Justice Thomas signed warned him that a false statement could subject him to civil and criminal sanctions. "NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFIES OR FAILS TO FILE THIS REPORT MAY BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS (5 U.S.C. app. section 104)" The statute referenced there, 5 U.S.C. app. section 104, defines the "civil and criminal sanctions" for "knowingly and willfully falsif[ying]" the report, as a fine "not to exceed $50,000" and "imprison[ment] for not more than 1 year, or both" for each violation.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...by-falsifying-disclosure-forms-115002859.html

Well its good to see that a supreme court justice can violate the law and just say opps I didn't know! I wonder how many people get caught cheating on their taxes get to adjust their forms 20+ years back instead of going to trial?

----------------------
Note: this is not related at all to their taxes - income was reported to IRS

Common Courtesy
AT Admin

 

[Toastedlightly]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...by-falsifying-disclosure-forms-115002859.html

Well its good to see that a supreme court justice can violate the law and just say opps I didn't know! I wonder how many people get caught cheating on their taxes get to adjust their forms 20+ years back instead of going to trial?

Sensational thread title. Change it to wife's income.

On that note, still should be forced to pay back taxes or whatever else is required by law.

 

[her209]

He probably used Turbo Tax.

 

[PeshakJang]

I wonder how many people get caught cheating on their taxes get to adjust their forms 20+ years back instead of going to trial?

Most of Obama's appointments since he became president, apparently. Including the head of the IRS, I believe.

Also, he didn't cheat on his taxes it seems. If true, he just failed to fully disclose his financial positions (or his wife's in this case), which may be used to determine conflict of interest.

 

[CycloWizard]

Maybe he didn't know what incom (sic) was.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Did he not report the income on taxes or did it not get identified on the special forms?

He probably used Turbo Tax.

The article does not say anything about taxes - serious business there


Form filing for work is not as serious problem. It did not cost the government any $$.
Can anyone point to where he was participated in what would have been detected as a conflict of interest.

After all, if the Chairman of the House Committee that oversees taxes & regulations can not understand the rules that he wrote; how would one expect the judge to comprehend such.

Another liberal lapdog group nipping at the heals.
The conservative radio hosts get better mileage out of non-issues

 

[Thump553]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...by-falsifying-disclosure-forms-115002859.html

Well its good to see that a supreme court justice can violate the law and just say opps I didn't know! I wonder how many people get caught cheating on their taxes get to adjust their forms 20+ years back instead of going to trial?

Not to understate what Thomas did, but it was NOT cheating on his taxes. Judges and Justices are supposed to disclose basic information about their income and assets so litigants in their court can spot potential conflicts of interest. It is those disclosure rules he violated.

As for his explanation for his omissions it's on the level of "my dog ate my homework." It really brings into question of competence as a Supreme Court Justice if he has dificulty interpreting basic disclosure rules. Rules that thousands of other judges and justices have no dificulty with.

 

[Vette73]

Not to understate what Thomas did, but it was NOT cheating on his taxes. Judges and Justices are supposed to disclose basic information about their income and assets so litigants in their court can spot potential conflicts of interest. It is those disclosure rules he violated.

As for his explanation for his omissions it's on the level of "my dog ate my homework." It really brings into question of competence as a Supreme Court Justice if he has dificulty interpreting basic disclosure rules. Rules that thousands of other judges and justices have no dificulty with.

Probable spilled his coke on the form when he saw a pube hair and could not make that part out... since 1989. :awe:

 

[her209]

The article does not say anything about taxes - serious business there

It was a subtle reference to Timothy Geithner.

 

[CPA]

The article does not say anything about taxes - serious business there

Unless you're a democrat - see Timothy Geitner

 

[CPA]

nm

 

[senseamp]

He should be impeached.

 

[Lemon law]

Since this information seems fairly new, it is very hard to foresee exactly what the ramifications may be.

But Richard Nixon was forced to resign for less. And it will hopefully result in getting Clarence Thomas booted off SCOTUS. Especially if the Justice department gets involved.

As for the Heritage Foundation, they may end up in serious doo doo also.

But the last thing to note, is that no one was barking up the Clarence Thomas tree before, and no many thousands will be combing his past with a fine tooth comb, and thus who knows what else will be found.

 

[daishi5]

Who discovered and reported the problem, the report makes it sound like Thomas just admitted it with a "self initiated" filing. Unless there was an investigation that caused him to fess up, it sounds like he was the person to turn himself in for this mistake. Turning himself in makes it sound much more credible that it was an honest mistake.

 

[Vette73]

Who discovered and reported the problem, the report makes it sound like Thomas just admitted it with a "self initiated" filing. Unless there was an investigation that caused him to fess up, it sounds like he was the person to turn himself in for this mistake. Turning himself in makes it sound much more credible that it was an honest mistake.

I be willing to bet someone started asking questions and he tried to cover his tracks before it got out.
Him filling it on a Sat when the office was closed raises red flags for me as I work Fed and you need to know someone way up or get special treatment for that to happen in most offices I have seen.

 

[sandorski]

Due to his Position, something like this needs the fine tooth comb treatment.

 

[jman19]

Most of Obama's appointments since he became president, apparently. Including the head of the IRS, I believe.

But but but Obama!!!!!1111

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I be willing to bet someone started asking questions and he tried to cover his tracks before it got out.
Him filling it on a Sat when the office was closed raises red flags for me as I work Fed and you need to know someone way up or get special treatment for that to happen in most offices I have seen.

That's exactly what happened. There's more detailed info here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8331
With the initial outing here:
http://bradblog.com/Docs/ClarenceThomas_CommonCauseLetter_012111.pdf
This should be treated as a BFD.

 

[Lemon law]

He should be impeached.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, but there is that minor detail that impeachment must begin in the House of Representatives, and ole weeping John is more likely to rally to the defense of Thomas.

So the pressure on Thomas will likely to have to initially come from other sources before enough hot fires of public Revelations get hot enough to force the House to act.

So in my mind, I will wait and see where this goes while telling my congressmen I think Thomas has to go.

 

[fed3r2198]

I be willing to bet someone started asking questions and he tried to cover his tracks before it got out.
Him filling it on a Sat when the office was closed raises red flags for me as I work Fed and you need to know someone way up or get special treatment for that to happen in most offices I have seen.

AFAIK that is basically correct. A group called common cause petitioned the Justice Department to investigate Scalia and Thomas in regards to Citizens united and after words Thomas "corrected" his tax filings.

The allegation comes days after Common Cause filed a letter requesting that the Justice Department investigate whether Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have disqualified themselves from hearing a campaign finance case after they reportedly attended a private meeting sponsored by Charles and David Koch, billionaire philanthropists who fund conservative causes.

 

[BoberFett]

A high ranking government employee skirting taxes? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

 

[thraashman]

This is far worse than an income tax misfiling. While failure to properly pay income taxes is something that should be noted, the fix is simple. One only has to pay their back income taxes plus interest. A court justice, and especially a supreme court justice, can potentially have affected legal precedence in this nation in a way that specifically benefits their own personal income. That's a HUGE fucking deal! Hell, that's potentially one of the biggest frauds in the history of this nation and could invalidate EVERY ruling of the Supreme Court that Thomas was part of if a conservative think tank that paid his wife was in any way involved. That could change US law going back as far as he was appointed, almost 20 years ago.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A high ranking government employee skirting taxes? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Not his taxes.

OP wanted it to seem that way

 

[Vette73]

A high ranking government employee skirting taxes? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Does not sound like a tax issue, but a disclosure one. That usually is not a major thing unless it’s a judge or someone directly overseeing something they may have ties and/or conflict with.
But for a Federal judge to do this, let alone a SC one, would usually have major issues. But in this case if the SC rules one way there is limited appeals other than congress. So even if Thomas thumbs his nose up and says so what, he’s right, so what you going to do? Its not like he has some squeaky clean image after all, so he has little to lose either way.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This is far worse than an income tax misfiling. While failure to properly pay income taxes is something that should be noted, the fix is simple. One only has to pay their back income taxes plus interest. A court justice, and especially a supreme court justice, can potentially have affected legal precedence in this nation in a way that specifically benefits their own personal income. That's a HUGE fucking deal! Hell, that's potentially one of the biggest frauds in the history of this nation and could invalidate EVERY ruling of the Supreme Court that Thomas was part of if a conservative think tank that paid his wife was in any way involved. That could change US law going back as far as he was appointed, almost 20 years ago.

Had there been rulings that were questionable, I am sure that the liberal article would be trumpeting it to the heavens.

As it is, they could only find a oversight to file to complain about.


But those that climb aboard for the knee jerk are unable to tell the difference.