Clarence Thomas Is Trying To Get Away With A Felony

[Joanne98]

Many news outlets that have reported on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose his wife's income are portraying the allegations as, at most, a misdemeanor.

But as we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, and now is being reported by protectourelections.org, Thomas' actions would amount to a felony if proven in a court of law. In fact, Protect Our Elections (POE) cites several cases where individuals have faced prosecution under the felony statute, the same one that Thomas apparently is trying to skirt by amending disclosure forms going back 20 years.

POE also is reporting that Virginia Thomas, the justice's wife, is part of an outfit called Liberty Consulting Inc., which appears to be a front organization for conservative interests who have issues before the Supreme Court.

News reports on the Thomas case generally have referenced 5 U.S. Code app. section 104, which calls for a misdemeanor punishment of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation. Given that Thomas apparently violated the statute for roughly 20 years, he could wind up with a substantial penalty under that law.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clarence-Thomas-Is-Trying-by-Roger-Shuler-110209-557.html

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[bluethruandthru]

2. I doubt he'll ever pay any kind of price...but

I'll keep my fingers crossed!

[fasttense]

3. Thomas needs to be prosecuted as the criminal he is.

If he is allowed to escape prosecution, while others have gone to jail for doing the same thing, then America can pretty well give up on the rule of law.

I don't think he needs to be impeached ...right now. But prosecuting him like all the other criminals who did very similar crimes, would help make it clear that America is ruled by laws and not whims.

[RC]

4. "America is ruled by laws and not whims."

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[FBaggins]

5. Oh lordy... now it's a felony?

Please. That claim could only come from someone who had never actually prosecuted under those statutes. The prosecution has to prove that the defendent intentionally falsified the information for some nefarious purpose. The crime must have a motive... and this one doesn't. He has to be intentionally hiding something... and he wasn't.

I have no idea how he could be so boneheaded as to make the mistake (or perhaps he thought that the requirement was not enforcable?)... but it simply isn't a criminal act. Let alone a felony.

[CanonRay]

6. Are you kidding me?

Making a False Statement of a material fact, is a felony under Title 18 USC 1001. Your OP says it wasn't intentional. Lies on the same question for 20 straight years is not intentional? How could he NOT know his wife had income as a lobbyist? Do you know if your significant other is working? I sure do. Any reasonable jury would clearly conclude that his actions were both intentional and with knowledge. The only question is to whether it is a "material" fact. I would say that hiding her influence on 20 years of Supreme Court decision, and/or his having to recuse himself on those decisions would obviously be material. You do not have to prove motive, just materiality.

You were joking, right? I was a Federal investigator for over 20 years, and I'd put this one in the relatively easy column. If anyone cared to prosecute, that is.

[FBaggins]

7. Nope. Not kidding.

Making a False Statement of a material fact

And as I said... the burden there is quite high.

Your OP says it wasn't intentional. Lies on the same question for 20 straight years is not intentional? How could he NOT know his wife had income as a lobbyist?

It has nothing to do with whether or not he knew that his wife had this income... the question is whether or not he intended to hide that information from the public (by excluding it from the form). It would be impossible to prove that he had such an intention.

Any reasonable jury would clearly conclude that his actions were both intentional and with knowledge.

No they wouldn't, because it isn't the "intent" to fill the form out that way that must be proven, it's the intent to coneal the information.

I would say that hiding her influence on 20 years of Supreme Court decision, and/or his having to recuse himself on those decisions would obviously be material.

If there was some way of showing that he even was hiding it. Since it was very public knowledge and in no way hidden (except by it's exclusion from this form), you couldn't plausibly claim that he was hiding it (let alone prove it in court).


The relevant comparison here is to look at the other cases where such charges were made (and convictions won) and see whether there are any similarities. Take the case of Fraser Verrusio (mentioned in the article). He's charged with conspiring to receive illegal gratuities. Of course he didn't claim the "income" on his taxes either. It's clear that he had the intent to deceive when he filed his financial disclosures because there was a (criminal) act that he was, in fact, hiding.

[Fuddnik]

8. He filled out the same forms correctly, prior to his 20 years of omissons..

Thomas was hiding very severe conflicts of interest.

[FBaggins]

9. You can't "hide" a conflict that everyone knows about.

That's my earlier point. Proving that it was an intentional deception involved showing that he acted to conceal the information. But this form didn't accomplish that.

[ellenfl]

10. regardless, if he suddenly quit reporting his wife's income,

it could not have been an oversight . . . or he's not fit to be a sc justice with that kind of memory lapse.

ellen fl

[FBaggins]

11. I'm not saying that it was an oversight.

I can't for the life of me figure out how it could be an accident OR what would cause him to do it on purpose.

All I'm saying is that it's pretty ridiculous to consider it to be criminal... let alone a felony. The only possible charge boils down to trying to conceal a conflict of interest... that he couldn't possibly conceal.

[OnyxCollie]

15. You are correct.

What is needed is something similar to the diplomatic cable leaked by WikiLeaks that showed the Obama administration colluded with the GOP to stop Spain's investigation of the US for war crimes.

Did I get that right?

[louslobbs]

16. Only a Bonehead

would believe that what this pig did, secretly on a Saturday to make this look less than it is, was a mistake. These people don't make mistakes, they calculate, play their game and if they should get caught, rely on their powerful positions, their purchased media and the idiot rabble to do their dirty work and look the other way. Mistake? LOL Give Me A Break.

[FBaggins]

17. I didn't say that it was a mistake.

I specifically said that I can't imagine how it could be a mistake... or why he did it if it wasn't a mistake.

It just isn't a criminal act.

[RufusTFirefly]

12. Don't worry: I'm sure the Court will rule 5-4 in his favor

:spank:

[Citizen Worker]

13. The rule of law does not apply to the ruling class, but rather is limited to the working class.

[The Second Stone]

14. He should be prosecuted

Not prosecuting sends a really bad message that it is okay for the rich and powerful to skirt the law and that only the little people need obey. Whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor is for the courts to decide. Either way he should be impeached.

[beac]

22. Exactly. If one of the highest judges in the country thinks he's above the law, then

he should be absolutley be reminded that he isn't. Prosecution AND impeachment should do it. (Thomas isn't very bright, after all.)


edited for typo

[MasonJar]

18. Impeach Thomas. Keep this alive. Put the screws to him.

[The Wizard]

19. Martha Stewart and Tommy Chong

got jail time for a lot less than deliberately falsifying a tax return.

[NICO9000]

23. Excellent point!

:yourock:

[Doctor_J]

20. Should read, "another felony"

the man is the most corrupt justice in history. If he wasn't a black Repuke he'd be in prison.

[Kablooie]

21. All Republicans are allowed 20 years of criminal behavior. It's in the Constitution.

Amendment 18 - Republican Legal Exclusion Ratified 1/16/1919.

1. After one year from the ratification of this article law enforcement agencies shall be prohibited from assigning criminal charges to any registered Republican for a period of 20 years from his first infraction. At the expiration of this period only the minimum penalty may be assigned to any convicted Republican felon.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[avaistheone1]

24. K&R

[StarburstClock]

25. It's not a crime when a member of the elite commit it

It's a minor mistake, easily overlooked. It's the very reason there was a revolution in Egypt and the very reason there was a revolution in the U.S. starting in 1776.

[barbiegeek]

26. Trying... Is he is more like it