Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income for 5 years ($700,000)

[IcyPeas]

Last edited Tue Sep 27, 2022, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife’s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.

Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas’ omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said.

“It wasn’t a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission,” Gillers said. “It could not have been an oversight.”

The Supreme Court is “the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules,” Gillers said.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/09/oh-look-another-clarence-thomas-ethics-scandal/

https://archive.ph/SsyD1

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2011-jan-22-la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122-story.html

[intrepidity]

1. Grounds for impeachment? nt

[Demsrule86]

40. We don't have the votes.

[TigressDem]

89. Not YET...

That could change.


HERE IS ANOTHER REASON TO GOTV!!!


HOLD LAWBREAKERS ACCOUNTABLE.

ALL Americans should obey the law, ESPECIALLY those who enforce it on others.

[Sneederbunk]

107. You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict.

[qazplm135]

111. We will never have 67 votes in the Senate

ever.

Not in my lifetime at least.

[TigressDem]

126. IDK - EVER and NEVER are words that can bite you sometimes.

I did not think we could EVER get a pRes more inept and made into a cruel puppet than W *ush.

At the Inauguration, W actually said something I agreed with and I was shocked.

And he was there, showing confidence and support for the peaceful transfer of power.


There is over half of America that is NOT in anyway on board with HATEriots, racism and the Destruction of Democracy.
WE VOTED FOR BIDEN. HE WON.

SINCE THEN many of those who were onboard with tRump because he had the R nomination are coming to their senses.

Ironically, the WORSE it gets, the more people who look to the DEMs for solutions as we usually step up and clean up the messes.

SO possibly because it looks so obnoxiously impossible, it could just make it happen.

IDK. But I hope so.

[qazplm135]

130. when has it ever happened?

What would be the path?

Best case I count 34 Red Senate seats that would require a massive sea change to switch, and another half dozen that would require close to that.

[TigressDem]

131. I guess I am saying, don't be so sure one way or the other. Just work for the blue wave.

So many times societies have thought they endured the worst, and yet something darker came.

My horrible fear is that someone less doofus and more corrupt, like DeSatan would get the nomination and use his powers to take out legally elected leaders, replace them with his toadies as he has in Florida.

They CAN NOT be allowed to win ANYTHING until the ones who would win at any cost are knocked out of the running for the damage they have and will do to our Democracy if they are allowed.

BUT IF THAT HAPPENED.... then everyone here would no longer live in a Democracy, the veil would be ripped and they would know they got lied to and betrayed into the Fascism they thought they were fighting.

We would be living in Hell on Earth, but many would wake up and we'd have to have another revolution and another and another until we took our country back.

I think Texas will elect Beto. That will raise a lot of eyebrows. And if he does well, the tide might turn.

I'd rather hope for the impossible than wait for the inevitable, because it's a lot easier to tear a country apart than to put it back together. The creeps have the easy part. The rest of us would actually have to work and rebuild.

[JHB]

44. More than enough, plus his long history of ignoring conflicts of interest, but...

...without enough votes in the Senate, he's not leaving.

[Zeitghost]

52. We don't have the votes in the House either.

n/t

[H2O Man]

51. Yes.

But we would not get a conviction in the Senate at this time.

[dalton99a]

2. What are you gonna do? Take him to the Supreme Court?

[Warpy]

109. THIS is why the fat cats underfunded the IRS for so long

I think audits are going to uncover a lot of this crap, all among fat cats who could easily have afforded to pay their damned taxes.

Unfortunately, it won't remove him from the bench, but THINK of the interest and penalties on that amount of money! They're usually a lot more than the sum that is owed, and the bite is going to hurt both those loons deeply.

[onenote]

118. As has been pointed out repeatedly, this has nothing to do with tax reporting.

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. Call the IRS!

[SheltieLover]

10. Absolutely!

[WarGamer]

19. the article doesn't say whether they claimed it on their taxes... I'm curious.

The SCOTUS documents in question are NOT tax documents.

[Kingofalldems]

61. So therefore call the IRS to see what's what.

[fescuerescue]

33. It sounds like they know.

Odds are we wouldn't be reading about it otherwise.

[brooklynite]

55. No indication he or she has violated the Internal Revenue Code.

[Scrivener7]

4. If only there was some step we could take when SC justices

break the law.

[doc03]

11. I thought nobody was above the law in the USA not

even a president.

[Scrivener7]

16. I have serious doubts about that.

[Lonestarblue]

43. Evidently SC justices are also above the law.

I wish we could get Constitutional Amendments passed these days. Two of the most needed are getting rid of the Electoral College and lifetime appointments for all federal and SC judges. The concept of “serving with good behavior” is just too amorphous for holding renega judges accountable.

[Demsrule86]

41. We don't know if they paid taxes on it or not. So we don't know if they broke the law.

And there is no step we can take if they won't resign in shame except impeachment and we don't have the votes.

[Genki Hikari]

83. It's not just the IRS you can't lie to

You can't lie to the government. Every federal employee has seen this at the bottom of reporting forms they've had to fill out and sign:

I understand that whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

It's to remind you that lying on the form is a very bad idea.

[Captain Zero]

87. Does that cover OMMISSIONS?

So they omitted the Source of her income, but they still reported the income to the IRS?
That might be ok. I could tell you some true stories about omitting income. You have to correct your ass really fast with the IRS, and they already know what you omitted. Because the employer reported it to them.

This looks just to be his ethics statement ?
Who cares about that. Not Republicans anymore. We know that.

[TigressDem]

90. Checked NONE is a lie.

WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING?

[allegorical oracle]

108. He doesn't strike me as overly sharp, and the box he marked "none" says...

Thomas ...instead checked a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed. Maybe he figured they would be investing that income, so he marked it "none." (I know, it's Blondie Bumstead logic.)

[KPN]

102. Lies by omission are lies.

[onenote]

119. The cited provision is not the provision applicable to financial disclosure forms

This is the certification provision at the end of the financial disclosure form:

I certify that all information given above (including information pertaining to my spouse and minor or dependent children, if any) is
accurate, true, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that any information not reported was withheld because it met applicable statutory provisions permitting non-disclosure.
I further certify that earned income from outside employment and honoraria and the acceptance of gifts which have been reported are in compliance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. app. § 501 et. seq., 5 U.S.C. § 7353, and Judicial Conference regulations.
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. § 104)

5 usc app $104 can be found here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:5a%20section:104%20edition:prelim)

[Genki Hikari]

128. Why am I not surprised that different people get different

reporting requirements?

Every government disclosure form I had to sign off on had the 1001 verbiage in it, but I was a mere peon. How dare any of us have any hint of being bought!

BTW: Your link is correct, but only if you highlight everything and either copy and paste it into a window or do the right click thing on it. If you click on the link as shown, it comes up as an error.

[Emile]

5. Jesus

[dchill]

6. "Clarence Thomas failed to report..."

And Ginny didn't? They're in this together, right?

[Scrivener7]

17. It's about his not reporting it in the yearly disclosure of income required of him

as a SC judge.

So this is all him.

[dchill]

22. How do you walk with one leg?

[Scrivener7]

24. I have no idea what that means. Are you insisting that Ginny has culpability?

Do you understand what is being described?

Each year, each SC judge has to fill out a form that lists their income and the income of their spouses. There is a box to check if the spouse did not make income. Thomas checked that box for many years when Ginny was making a lot of money.

There's a lot that is her fault and their communal fault. But this is him.

[dchill]

26. There's an interview of them both where Clarence says...

...he couldn't do it without her. His other half. You can't walk on one leg. It's sappy shit coming from that monster to the other monster. I understand what the story is, but I believe they know all about each other. All.

[Scrivener7]

27. Ah. Yes, that's gross.

[fescuerescue]

35. Ginny isn't a judge. So she doesn't file judicial financial reporting documents

What's being reported here, is NOT that they didn't pay taxes on it, or report it to the IRS. What's being reported is that Thomas didn't file a financial disclosure to the judiciary.

Frankly, that's probably how it was discovered. The tax return didn't match the judicial disclosure.

But Ginny doesn't disclose income to the judiciary. That's just Clarence.

[onenote]

122. He filed the form, but did not report that his wife had income and its source.

He wasn't required to report the amount of her income, just the source. On his disclosure forms for 2003 through 2009, he checked the box on the form that says "None" for his wife's non-investment income. He should have left that box unchecked and listed Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College as the two entities that paid his wife a salary (but, again, not the amount of that salary).

This was discovered back in 2011 by reviewing the Heritage Foundation records and noticing that they reported his wife as a paid employee. It was covered by the media at the time and Thomas quickly amended the forms he had filed for the years in question and that was the end of it until it suddenly reappeared in social media a decade later. He has listed the sources of her income on the forms filed starting with the 2010 form.

[johnnyfins]

60. But they make such a lovely couple

:/

GAG

[haele]

62. Nope, it's a form for all government employees in supervisory and policy making roles.

This is to ensure there are no conflicts of interest or to point out if there could be a conflict of interest.
Doesn't matter if they're elected, appointed, or hired.

Haele

[Mr. Ected]

7. Ignorance of the law is no excuse

But this ignoramus is a sorry excuse for a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE (and human being).

[bucolic_frolic]

8. Local reporting laws, District of Columbia

Does Federal Law apply? Is it enforceable?

[patphil]

9. By checking "none", he acknowledged that he was deliberately failing to report her income.

If that federal law includes the SC, he should be prosecuted for non-disclosure, especially due to the nature of the Heritage Foundation.
It's a conservative think tank...very political.
Justice Thomas knew exactly what he was doing...hiding the fact that his wife was an employee of a partisan political company.
This should have required him to recuse himself from any politically oriented cases before the court. Of course he wasn't having any of that.
Lack or honor and ethics, thy name is Clarence Thomas.

[Zeitghost]

29. If he was a regular Judge

It would require him to recuse himself from cases directly involving the Heritage Foundation, not all political cases.

[fescuerescue]

36. What does the law say the recourse is?

It's surprising how many times a law is written, but there is no penalty for not following it. Especially when it applies to ruling members of society.

If there is no penalty for not disclosing it, prosecuting becomes an empty exercise.

On that same note, there is nothing that requires a JC judge to recuse themselves on any case. They should sometimes. It's part of bar ethics. But absolutely nothing requires them, and fellow SC members cannot force a recusal.

Thomas in theory could be disbarred. But a SC judge doesn't have to be a member of the bar.

There is only one recourse: Impeachment. And good luck with that.

[Genki Hikari]

84. There is a law

Every federal employee disclosure form has some form of this at the bottom of it:

I understand that whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

That doesn't mean that the law will apply here, if the statue of limitations has run out. Which it probably has.

But there is a law about lying to the government when making a report to them.

Every single person who's worked or served in the federal government would know this.

[Walleye]

12. We can't prosecute him because he will call it a "high-tech lynching"

One thing the right wing is good at is using our virtues against us

[Traildogbob]

45. He would

Appeal it until the Supremacy Court would hear the case. He would not recuse and we know what the other 5 “Q” judges will do. “JUSTUS”. Exactly how it is spelled. The law only applies to JUST—US! None of them.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

13. Was that wrong?

[SergeStorms]

14. Surprise, surprise.

The scumbag has been nothing but a lying, low-life since the first day of his confirmation hearing.

But what the hell does he care? He knows he'll never get so much as a stern talking-to, and he'll drag his crooked ass into the SC until he takes his final breath. Life is good for Clarence and Gini Thomas. To hell with everyone else.

[bronxiteforever]

15. This is an 11 year old article. Is there any follow up?

[Emile]

18. Did he pay back taxes?

[bronxiteforever]

25. I have no idea. I didn't post it but good question.

[Zeitghost]

30. What back taxes?

This is not a tax issue.

[Emile]

38. He simply omitted to the IRS his wife's source of income for six years.

Not about taxes, okay then what's it about

[Zeitghost]

39. IRS?

Where are you getting this info? This has nothing to do with the IRS or taxes. It's a 16 year old story about income disclosures for federal judges.

[Emile]

42. You are right, I misread the Op.

[fescuerescue]

37. The allegation isn't that he didn't report to the IRS

The allegation is that he didn't disclose the income to the judiciary.

[leftieNanner]

48. This is not about his tax return

It's about the disclosure form he has to file for his job.

[IcyPeas]

28. I can't find a follow-up. But I think this tweet from Common Cause brought it up again today

Link to tweet

[bronxiteforever]

64. This is good. Thanks Icy Peas!

[onenote]

98. See post #97: Thomas wasn't required to report the amount of his wife's income

The form doesn't require the amount to be reported. It does require that a justice disclose whether his/her spouse received non-investment income and the source. Thomas failed to comply for a number of years because he checked the box "none" and didn't disclose the fact that his wife received income from her employer at that time (Heritage Foundation). He amended the forms in 2011 and I don't see any indication that he was penalized for his non-disclosure.

[spanone]

20. He Cheated On His TAXES.

A Seven Hundred Thousand Dollar Oversight?

Sure

[Zeitghost]

31. No

This has nothing to do with taxes.

[LoisB]

21. I am about as sick of Clarence and Ginni as I am of Trump and his spawn.

[Blue Owl]

23. Defrock this corrupt, compromised pervert from his robe

[Bristlecone]

32. Jeezus H how is this guy still on the bench

*typo nt

[LuckyCharms]

34. Oops.

[pnwmom]

46. From 2003-2007. So probably there's nothing to be done about it now. n/t

[calimary]

47. Well, remember: that's how they finally got Al Capone.

Tax evasion.

Hey, whatever works!

[Zeitghost]

57. This is not tax evasion...

n/t

[sakabatou]

49. For an ordinary person, they would be arrested, but I guess Thomas is above the law

😑

[Zeitghost]

53. Arrested?

On what charges exactly?

[sakabatou]

74. Okay, maybe not arrested, after seeing what the penalties are

But at least fined, and having to go up to an ethics board.

[Genki Hikari]

81. This one

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

But I'd guess the statue of limitations has expired to pursue it.

How...convenient

[Zeitghost]

105. Apparently

The Obama DOJ didn't think so.

[Evolve Dammit]

50. Doh!. You mean I really had to do that?? I mean I really hate the government I represent. Taxes are

for suckers and losers, right Clarence??

[Zeitghost]

54. Taxes?

n/t

[Heather MC]

56. Let's see if Thomas gets the

Whyte Protection treatment. or the black man tossed over, under threw and out the bus🤔🌬

[samsingh]

58. these people on the supreme court seem to be criminals

worse than some third world countries.

disgusting

[nakocal]

59. Article title should be

Justice Thomas did not disclosed bribes he received through his wife.

[lonely bird]

63. The SCOTUS is incompetent

Roberts has lost any control he might have had and is mediocre to boot. Gorsuch is mediocre. Thomas, Barrett and Kavanaugh are pathetic.

[czarjak]

65. Do The Right Thing?

[oldtime dfl_er]

66. Can a felon be a Supreme Court Justice?

asking for a friend

[Kaleva]

71. Not a convicted felon

He's innocent until proven quilty in a court of law

[keithbvadu2]

67. Morals, honor, ethics and integrity... not for Clarence.

Morals, honor, ethics and integrity... not for Clarence.

[Mr.Bill]

68. Forget Trump,

Clarence Thomas could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and he wouldn't be removed from office.

[BlueIdaho]

69. You know, in the America of my dreams

This would actually count for something and he would resign from the SC in shame.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

70. The Thomas family would not know an ethical boundary if it beat them over the head

They love being about the law and it shows how little these people really are.

They both feel entitled to cheat the system.

KARMA is coming for you both.

[Kaleva]

72. As this took place 11 years ago, I doubt the Biden Administration will do anything

[Genki Hikari]

85. It wouldn't be up to Biden.

As a violation of 18 USC § 1001, it would be a matter for the DOJ.

If the statue of limitations hasn't run out. At 11 years ago, I imagine that ship has sailed.

[Kaleva]

95. DOJ is part of the Biden Administration

[onenote]

99. It was widely reported in 2011 when Obama was president

and after Thomas amended his past forms it appears the matter was dropped.

[Cha]

73. Lying Fascist CHEATER!

[ThoughtCriminal]

75. When Justice Roberts complains

about the attacks on the Supreme Court's legitimacy, he ignores ethical failures like this.

It's not just that the conservative majority is making poorly reasoned and disastrous rulings that are pure ideological authoritarianism rather than the rule of law. The confirmation process was broken and where this court above all should be held to highest standard of ethics - they fail spectacularly and there is zero accountability.

[Brainfodder]

76. No ethics rules there is bananas.

[Genki Hikari]

82. The US Criminal Code says it's a no-no.

18 USC §1001, to be specific.

That one's at the bottom of a lot of reporting forms for federal employees and officials, to let you know that lying on the form is a bad idea.

[onenote]

100. Giving false information on the financial form is governed by a different provision of law

As stated on the form itself.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:5a%20section:104%20edition:prelim)

[Kid Berwyn]

77. Couple with the fact he gets more GIFTS than any Justice (ca. 2004)

Justice Thomas reported a wealth of gifts

In the last six years he has accepted free items valued at $42,200, the most on the high court.

December 31, 2004|Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage | LA Times Staff Writers

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts since joining the high court, including $1,200 worth of tires, valuable historical items and a $5,000 personal check to help pay a relative's education expenses.

SNIP...

He also took a free trip aboard a private jet to the exclusive Bohemian Grove club in Northern California -- arranged by a wealthy Texas real estate investor who helped run an advocacy group that filed briefs with the Supreme Court.

Those and other gifts were disclosed by Thomas under a 1978 federal ethics law that requires high-ranking government officials, including the nine Supreme Court justices, to file a report each year that lists gifts, money and other items they have received.

Thomas has reported accepting much more valuable gifts than his Supreme Court colleagues over the last six years, according to their disclosure forms on file at the court.

CONTINUED...

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/31/nation/na-gifts31

[IcyPeas]

79. Wow, he's been practicing his corruption for decades

A few gifts here... a few gifts there...

I wonder if Ginni gets gifts too?

[MagickMuffin]

78. Corruption is thy name for the Thomas'

But hey they are above the LAWS they get to interpret it and usurp it.

[Genki Hikari]

80. So is he guilty of making a false statement

to the US Government? I think that's a federal offense. Maybe this one?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

But I'm no lawyer, so someone tell me if I'm off here.

[onenote]

103. Knowing and willfully falsifying a financial disclosure form is covered by a different provision

This is the certification provision at the end of the financial disclosure form:

I certify that all information given above (including information pertaining to my spouse and minor or dependent children, if any) is
accurate, true, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that any information not reported was withheld because it met applicable statutory provisions permitting non-disclosure.
I further certify that earned income from outside employment and honoraria and the acceptance of gifts which have been reported are in compliance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. app. § 501 et. seq., 5 U.S.C. § 7353, and Judicial Conference regulations.
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. § 104)

5 usc app $104 can be found here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:5a%20section:104%20edition:prelim)

[Samrob]

86. More than one reason to IMPEACH the bastard!! nt

[Bettie]

88. First Agenda Item

A small bill that requires SCOTUS to abide by the ethics rules for other federal judges.

[uponit7771]

91. K&R,

[ZonkerHarris]

92. 3.5 million in corrupt money he tried to hide from US citizens.

[sinkingfeeling]

93. Laws are only for Democrats and the 'little people', not Republicans.

[betsuni]

94. K&R

[msfiddlestix]

96. Dollars to Donuts, it's a hell of a lot more, and for a hell of a lot more years. n/t

[onenote]

97. One clarification: The form doesn't require a justice to list amount of spousal income

The financial disclosure form that Thomas (and all other Justices) fill out requires disclosure of the name of any entity providing the justice's spouse with income but it expressly states that the amount of that income does not have to be disclosed. For many years, Thomas improperly checked "none" on the question of whether his spouse had income from non-investment sources. After his failure to report that his wife had income and the sources of that income was exposed in 2011, he amended his back forms. His forms since 2011 have indicated that his wife receives income from Liberty Consulting.

[grantcart]

110. Thanks for the clarification

[IcyPeas]

115. thanks for clarification.

where'd you see that?

[onenote]

116. The forms are available on-line

Here's Thomas's most recent submission. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Thomas-C-J3.-SC_SR_21.pdf

Page 2, Item III, B. Italics under heading "(Dollar amount not required except for honoraria.)"


Years of disclosure statements for each Justice can be searched here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/financial-disclosures/

[IcyPeas]

124. oh wow, thanks.

didn't know this was available. thanks.

[niyad]

101. I remember hearing about this some time ago, and mothing was done.

[bucolic_frolic]

104. Defrauding the public

We've all been harmed.

[dlk]

106. We have a tax cheat (among other things) on the Supreme Court

In a just world, Thomas' tax evasion would be grounds for impeachment.

[Zeitghost]

114. Does anybody read past the headlines?

This has nothing to do with taxes.

[onenote]

117. Apparently quite a few don't. Sorta sad.

[Emile]

120. The headline is very misleading.

True, its not about taxes.

[onenote]

123. And he wasn't required to report the amount of her income.

He fucked up by checking none on the section of the form where a justice reports the sources of his/her spouses non-investment income. But that portion of the form expressly states that it doesn't require that the amount of the income be reported.

[Zeitghost]

125. That is true

nt

[dlk]

127. Thanks

I’m willing to bet Thomas cheats on his taxes, too. He’s inherently dishonest.

[Hekate]

112. Clarence is really a prince among men, isn't he? And to think he's in Thurgood Marshall's seat...

It’s not just Professor Anita Hill’s testimony — it is the arrogant slap across all our faces that he was chosen by the GOP to be “the black Supreme Court Justice.”

[BigDemVoter]

113. Evidently that stupid, slack-jawed, sack of shit

and his born-again, idiot wife think the law doesn't apply to them. . . .

[Catherine Vincent]

121. Smh

Smh. And he won't be held accountable.

[Dave says]

129. Our nation is corrupt as hell

At least to my knowledge - at least not yet - oligarchs aren’t flying out of windows.