Clarence Thomas faces disbarment complaint in Missouri
The allegation that Clarence Thomas knowingly and willfully falsified his financial disclosure forms for 20 years is not going away.
Politico this week had a piece on a defiant speech by Thomas at a Virginia symposium for conservative law students, in which he defended his and his wife’s honor, and her conservative advocacy. During that speech, Thomas issued the following dire warnings:
Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”
He also lashed out at his critics, without naming them, asserting they “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution. Such criticism, Thomas warned, could erode the ability of American citizens to fend off threats to their way of life.“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that – that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties,” he said, according to a partial recording of the speech provided to POLITICO by someone who was at the meeting.
… “And that’s long after I’m gone, and that could be either a short or a long time, but you’re younger, and it’s still going to be a necessity to protect the liberties that you enjoy now in this country.”
Alternet picks it up from there:
What threats is Thomas talking about? He did not make it clear. But the justice apparently feels threatened by recent reports that he repeatedly failed to disclose his wife’s non-investment income. The story, broken by Common Cause, should lead to serious consequences, [watchdog group Protect Our Elections (POE) attorney Kevin] Zeese says. From the bar complaint:
Clarence Thomas breached his legal duty and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly and willfully failing for 20 years to state truthfully on required AO 10 Financial Disclosure Forms that his wife Virginia earned non-investment income. Clarence Thomas further labored under a financial conflict of interest by failing to disclose $100,000 in support for his nomination by the Citizens United Foundation when he sat in judgment of a case involving Citizens United. Finally, he made rulings that his wife benefited from financially and professionally, and by extension, that benefited him. In short, this unethical and criminal conduct violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, and undermines the rule of law, respect for the law and confidence in the law.
Thomas has sought to resolve the issue by filing amended financial-disclosure forms. But Zeese says that should not be the end of it:
Justice Thomas acted knowingly and willfully. First, judges are presumed to know the law and at least four of Justice Thomas’ colleagues on the Supreme Court–Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy and Roberts–knew well enough to disclose their spousal income during the same time frame that Justice Thomas did not.
Second, according to the Department of Justice Handbook on Prosecutions, a defendant’s signature on a document is strong evidence of willfulness and knowledge. See United States v. Tucker, 133 F.3d 1208, 1218 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that signature proved knowledge of contents of return); United States v. Mohney, 949 F.2d 1397, 1407 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that signature is prima facie evidence that the signer knows the contents of the return); United States v. Drape, 668 F.2d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 1982) (finding that defendant’s signature is sufficient to establish knowledge once it has been shown that the return was false).
Perhaps most alarming is Thomas’ failure to disclose conflicts that might have affected his decision-making:
It appears that Justice Thomas had a reason for not disclosing that his wife was working for a conservative think tank and a conservative 501c(4) group; he did not want litigants who had cases pending before the Supreme Court to have information that could be used to disqualify him from hearing those cases, and he wanted his family to benefit financially from his decisions.
The full bar complaint can be read here.
Zeese goes on to state that Thomas has no business sitting on the Supreme Court.
Interestingly enough, Thomas wrote a concurrent opinion in the Citizens United case, where he ruled with the majority for the personhood of corporations. His only complaint about the ruling? He didn’t believe corporations or organizations like the one that paid his wife for 20 years without him disclosing it, should have to disclose the source of the money they use to buy elections, nor should they have to follow the disclaimer provisions in the McCain Feingold law.
Go figure.
Related:
Conflict of Interest: Clarence Thomas’ Koch Brothers story doesn’t add up
Comments
4 Responses to “Clarence Thomas faces disbarment complaint in Missouri”
Leave a Reply
TOP STORIES
Follow & Friend
Links
The Reid Report named Best National Blog in the 2010 Florida Netroots Awards! Thanks to all who voted, and congrats to all the nominees and winners! Full list of winners here
Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
WTF Has Barack Obama Done So Far?
Please let the chickens come home to roost….
I'll believe that anyone truly goes after a Supreme Court justice when I see it happen. It may not be going away right now, but it will likely go away in the near future, I'll bet. I'm that cynical.
He should never have been appointed and confirmed. He owes along with his wife some jail time to the Citizens of the US>
I am disgusted to discover the abuse by a supreme court justice, Clarence Thomas, and urge all concerned to work harder to insure that he is removed from the court.