No way Thomas didn't know what he was doing ~  ~ Sooz

Group says Thomas failed to report income
Published: Jan. 22, 2011 at 1:54 PM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report nearly $700,000 his wife earned on financial disclosure forms, a watchdog group alleges.

Common Cause said Virginia Thomas earned more than $680,000 from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, between 2003 and 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The justice failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal non-investment income" would be disclosed, Common Cause alleged.

Federal judges are required to disclose the source of spousal income.

"It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law. "It could not have been an oversight."

Common Cause also alleged Thomas reported spousal income as "none" on his 2009 disclosure forms. Common Cause said another conservative group paid her an unknown salary that year.

The newspaper said it was unable to reach anyone Friday at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees financial disclosures, for a comment.

http://www.upi.com/Top_Ne...come/UPI-85181295722453/

Those "think tanks" certainly are a good way to pay bribes... er... supplement household income... er... reward for favours past... er...

What was I saying about corruption?

Heritage is not just any think tank. it is THE think tank. the lies they have perpetrated would make Goebbles blush.

I guess some people have wondered about him over the years since he's so quiet- guess he knows he's dumb but this sounds really stupid.

If he violated financial disclosure rules he should be assessed whatever penalties he's subject to.

Typically, though, people who file inaccurate reports are merely required to file amended reports.

Here's more ~ don't forget that last week Common Cause filed a complaint with the DoJ asking for an investigation into the political activities of Thomas and Scalia ~ and now CC uncovers 'irregularities' on Thomas' financial disclosure forms ~ CC is building its case, step by step ~ Sooz

Five years?
That's no accident.
Oh wait, he's a conservatives.

  

He's large, but that doesn't mean he's more than one conservative.

I didn't say it was an accident if his reports are inaccurate.

Oh, so that would make him a liar.
Gotcha.
A Supreme Court Justice is a liar.

There's no criminal penalty for omission of information from the forms.  There's an option for a fine, but typically the person is allowed to file an amended report.  Examples of this would be Bill Frist, Harry Reid and Charlie Rangel.
  

failing to report income is something you do with $870 - not $870k. this is way more serious.

That would be his wife's income tax.

  

Good observations, oskar and pic ~ and I'm guessing the Thomases file separately and that that factoid will be his excuse ~ Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and even Roberts are pushing the envelope with political/fund-raising connections and appearances ~ the game is on to find the one thread that will unravel the 'sanctity' of several current USSC justices ~ Sooz 

MAYBE CLARENCE THOMAS IS FORGETFUL.... You'd think a sitting Supreme Court justice would be more careful.

In October, there were some interesting questions raised about the propriety of Ginni Thomas collecting "large, unidentified contributions" from unknown sources, including, conceivably, interests with business before the Supreme Court.

But this new wrinkle raises separate questions. While Ginni Thomas engaged in all of this political activism, and received compensation for her work, Clarence Thomas failed altogether to report her income on financial disclosure forms. If he'd done this once or twice, it'd be easier to overlook as some kind of clerical error, but doing so every year from 2003 and 2007 suggests a more deliberate effort.

I'm trying to imagine what the response would be if a similar situation arose with a center-left justice. Imagine if, say, Justice Breyer's wife considered Republican officials dangerous radicals, and began collecting six-figure checks from secret donors in order to wage a "war against tyranny." Then, on his financial disclosure forms, Breyer failed to report his wife's income altogether, despite legal requirements.

The question isn't whether congressional Republicans would talk openly about his impeachment, but rather, how many congressional Republicans would do so.

Ian Millhiser added that Clarence Thomas isn't the only conservative justice to play fast and loose with propriety lately: "Justice Antonin Scalia also attended one of Charles Koch's right-wing fundraising and strategy sessions, and Justice Samuel Alito is a frequent speaker at fundraisers for groups such as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute -- the corporate front that funded the rise of Republican dirty trickster James O'Keefe and that used to employ anti-masturbation activist Christine O'Donnell."

—Steve Benen 10:25 AM January 23, 2011

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027655.php

is the same guy that got sued a few years back for sexual harassment by a bunch of his clerks?

Close enough.
  

I think it was very apparent during the hearings in the process to place Thomas on the SC that he was inherently dishonest , utilized poor judgement , in addition to never being qualified which seemed to get put aside then not revisited in any meaningful way during and post The Anita Hill revelation. Ginny Thomas ,rofl , remember her recent phone call message to Anita Hill ? If this were a novel that would seem too hokey to even put in. Unreal other than the fact it is true ! A case of facts can be stranger than fiction I suppose.

Whether you like Maureen Dowd or not , I think the title of one of her pieces last fall is apropos ; ' Supremely Poor Judgement ' . I think I will look it up just for the heck of it. Here it is ... Has that wacky Ginny Hill call in it and then some ...http://www.nytimes.com/20...0/24/opinion/24dowd.html

this recently surfaced again when Thomas' wife had the audacity to ask her to recant.  Anita basically told her to shove it up her backside.