Let's Take A Closer Look At Clarence Thomas

By Andrew Kreig

Feb. 1, 2011--The Los Angeles Times published a remarkable story over the weekend about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that deserves active follow up by bar authorities and the mainstream media, not simply legal reform organizations.

Justice 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.

Oh no! Another high tech lynching, Justice Thomas?

Reactions varied widely. Roger Shuler, a legal commentator, called for criminal charges, as did an activist group that launched a campaign for Justice Thomas' disbarment.

Seems Justice Thomas is amending financial-disclosure forms dating back more than 20 years, in an apparent effort to avoid prosecution for making false statements to the United States government.

Hal Neilson, an FBI special agent in Oxford, Mississippi, undoubtedly wishes he had been given such an opportunity. He also probably wishes the mainstream press would try to make the kind of excuses for him that are being made for Clarence Thomas.

Sorry Agent Neilson, you're just a lowly FBI Agent...we're talking one of the Supremes!

Meanwhile, the Washington Post helped spin the conventional wisdom: the justice said he "erred" in failing for 20 years to report the income his lobbyist wife had obtained to alter United States policies on a wide array of issues.

Justice Thomas is filing the requiring disclosures just as fast as he can. This from someone who never deigns to ask a question during oral arguments, and votes almost in lockstep with his conservative colleague Antonin Scalia to transform the nation's laws in ways remarkably consistent with his wife's lobbying.

In one of the first follow-ups, a progressive outlet essentially repeated the Los Angeles Times allegations: Think Progress –- Justice Thomas Omitted His Tea Partying Wife’s Income From Financial Disclosure Forms.

It's easy to envision why reporters, many of whom are fairly junior in this age of downsizing veterans, might tread very carefully on this kind of story, even if they work for a Democratic-oriented group such as Think Progress.

Remember how the non-partisan group undertook exhaustive scrutiny of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last year before recommending against her confirmation?

Did Clarence Thomas Commit a Federal Crime by Hiding Wife's Income?

Roger Shuler, Jan. 24, 2011. Does this mean a justice on the nation's highest court has committed a crime? The answer probably is yes. Will the legal system kick into high gear in an effort to protect one of its most exalted members?

The answer to that definitely is yes -- in fact, it already seems to be happening.

On Jan. 24, 2011 Protect Our Elections asks DOJ to prosecute Justice Thomas for false statements on his Financial Disclosure for making false statements every year since 2003; swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no income.

Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate. Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation’s Form 990s.

Hmmm...that's a nice piece of change. That could keep me in designer shoes for the rest of my life!

She is now working for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field.

The first anniversary of the court's decision to give corporations and unions a greater role in campaign spending brought renewed criticism from liberal groups and complaints about two justices from a government watchdog group.

Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Thomas acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.

Bless his heart! 

Let's Take A Closer Look At Clarence Thomas

By Andrew Kreig

Feb. 1, 2011--The Los Angeles Times published a remarkable story over the weekend about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that deserves active follow up by bar authorities and the mainstream media, not simply legal reform organizations.

Justice 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 non-investment income" would be disclosed.

Oh no! Another high tech lynching, Justice Thomas?

Reactions varied widely. Roger Shuler, a legal commentator, called for criminal charges, as well as an activist group that launched a campaign for Justice Thomas' disbarment.

Seems Justice Thomas is amending financial-disclosure forms dating back more than 20 years, in an apparent effort to avoid prosecution for making false statements to the United States government.

That's a lot of forgetting. Twenty years of amnesia. 


Meanwhile, the Washington Post helped spin the conventional wisdom: the Justice said he "erred" in failing for 20 years to report the income his lobbyist wife had obtained to alter United States policies on a wide array of issues.

Justice Thomas is filing the requiring disclosures just as fast as he can. This from someone who never deigns to ask a question during oral arguments, and votes almost in lockstep with his conservative colleague Antonin Scalia to transform the nation's laws in ways remarkably consistent with his wife's lobbying.

In one of the first follow-ups, a progressive outlet essentially repeated the Los Angeles Times allegations: Think Progress –- Justice Thomas Omitted His Tea Partying Wife’s Income From Financial Disclosure Forms.

It's easy to envision why reporters, many of whom are fairly junior in this age of downsizing veterans, might tread very carefully on this kind of story, even if they work for a Democratic-oriented group such as Think Progress.



Did Clarence Thomas Commit a Federal Crime by Hiding Wife's Income?

Roger Shuler, Jan. 24, 2011. Does this mean a justice on the nation's highest court has committed a crime? The answer probably is yes. Will the legal system kick into high gear in an effort to protect one of its most exalted members?

The answer to that definitely is yes -- in fact, it already seems to be happening.

On Jan. 24, 2011 Protect Our Elections asks DOJ to prosecute Justice Thomas for false statements on his Financial Disclosure for making false statements every year since 2003; swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no income.

Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate. Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation’s Form 990s.

She is now working for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field.

The first anniversary of the court's decision to give corporations and unions a greater role in campaign spending brought renewed criticism from liberal groups and complaints about two justices from a government watchdog group.

Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Thomas acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.

Remember how the non-partisan group undertook exhaustive scrutiny of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last year before recommending against her confirmation?

Local Chamber of Commerce COC

Definition* –- Local Chamber of Commerce
Association of businesses of a city, region, or country formed to protect and promote the economic interests of its members through legislative and other means. Major COCs are affiliated to the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, and arrange dispute resolution through arbitration, representation at trade exhibitions, trade promotion tours, ATA Carnets, apostilles, etc.

*Although I operated  a successful business for more than ten years, I never appreciated how the local chamber works. Bad me.