POE Press Release: New Bar Complaint Filed Against Clarence & Virginia Thomas

[Jefferson23]

* For what it's worth, never hurts to try:


Feb. 28, 2011

Files New Disciplinary Complaint with Missouri Bar Against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for Falsifying Disclosure Forms, Enriching His Wife, and Financial Conflicts of Interest.

Feb. 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, February 28, 2011, www.ProtectOurElections.org, filed a lengthy bar complaint with the Missouri Supreme Court, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas alleging three major grounds. First, that Justice Thomas committed crimes by falsifying 20 years of financial disclosure forms under oath by stating that his wife had no "non-investment income," when in fact she received at least $650,000 in such income in the form of salary from various jobs, including the Heritage Foundation. Second, that Justice Thomas labored under a financial conflict of interest by sitting in judgment of a case involving Citizens United when Citizens United had supported his nomination with at least $100,000 in advertising support which in turn generated millions of dollars in free media coverage. Third, that Justice Thomas and his wife financially benefitted from the decision in Citizens United. The complaint can be viewed at http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_MO_Bar_Complaint.pdf.

http://protectourelections.org/index.php?q=node/177

petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/prosecute_clarence_thomas/

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[jpak]

2. but..but..but.. it was an "honest" mistake. Silent Clarence wouldn't lie!!11

nope

:rofl:

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Maybe he remains silent to avoid being caught telling lies?

[Catbird]

4. Discouraging

Why is this man still on the Supreme Court?

[Jefferson23]

5. Details from 1991, Time magazine article:

Washington-area television viewers were startled last week to see three familiar senatorial faces pop up on their screens above the words WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGE? The follow-up question -- "How many of these liberal Democrats could themselves pass ethical scrutiny?" -- was hardly necessary, since the faces were those of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden and Alan Cranston, all scarred veterans of highly publicized scandals, from Chappaquiddick to plagiarized speeches to the Keating Five.

The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him. Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot that branded Michael Dukakis soft on crime but left George Bush open to charges of racism. Anxious not to be associated with such negative campaigning this time around, Bush quickly labeled the attacks on the Senators "counterproductive." Thomas pronounced them "vicious." His chief Senate supporter, Missouri Republican John Danforth, called them "sleazy" and "scurrilous."

Although Bush and chief of staff John Sununu demanded that the ads be pulled, their right-wing sponsors -- L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, and Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United -- refused. Calling the campaign a "pre-emptive strike" to counter anticipated anti-Thomas commercials, as well as retaliation for the 1987 spots that helped defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, they vowed to keep running the messages for at least two weeks "until the left agrees to discontinue all its efforts against Judge Thomas." Thus far, that has been a mostly fitful effort at best, but Brown and Bozell appeared to see the flag of revolution rising above it. "Unfortunately," the two men declared in a written statement, "the Administration has no desire to confront the radical left."

more:http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/clarence-thomas-fails-disclose-citizens-uni

[DirkGently]

6. Worth doing. Thomas is unfit to practice law, never mind sit on any bench, anywhere.

[Jefferson23]

7. Exactly and hopefully more momentum will build on this, Weiner and Chris Murphy

working to keep the story alive too.

A pressing need for a judicial code of ethics

*Nan Aron is the president of the Alliance for Justice, an association of more than 100 environmental, civil rights, and consumer advocacy organizations.


The problems — real or perceived — raised by Justices Scalia’s and Thomas’ actions are precisely why the Code of Conduct that governs federal judges mandates the avoidance of even the “appearance of impropriety.” The Code requires judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” and explicitly bans involvement in political and fundraising activity.

But Scalia and Thomas didn’t have to abide by those ethical restrictions. They could attend the Koch meeting with impunity because the mandatory Code of Conduct governing all other federal judges does not apply to the Supreme Court. Future controversies of this sort can be prevented by applying the same Code of Conduct that already governs the lower federal courts to the Supreme Court.

There is a growing awareness in Congress that without action the integrity of the Court is at risk. Recent statements by Representatives Anthony Weiner and Christopher Murphy have drawn attention to the lack of firm, consistent ethics rules for the justices. Hearings should be convened in both the Senate and House judiciary committees with the goal of reforming the rules and ending the ambiguous ethical environment in which Supreme Court justices now operate.

Another significant weakness in the Court’s procedures is the process of determining whether a justice must recuse himself or herself from a case due to a conflict of interest. The uncertainties arising from the current system can be seen in the dispute over whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself from the healthcare cases because of his wife’s income as an anti-reform lobbyist. As it stands now, the decision will rest exclusively with Thomas himself.

in full: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/146395-a-pressing-need-for-a-judicial-code-of-ethics

[Enthusiast]

11. The integrity of the Court is not 'at risk'

it is fucking GONE. With the Bush v Gore decision the SCOTUS showed that it could no longer be impartial. It has been all downhill from then on.

[FogerRox]

8. IMHO the tax issue might have some legs. The other 2 not so much.

[Jefferson23]

10. Certainly worth the effort, they got Capone on taxes, so who knows..maybe

we'll get lucky.

[ThomCat]

9. It is about damned time!

:woohoo:

I hope this really gets some traction and bites him permanently and deeply on the legal ass. Let's hope this even results in him having to resign from the bench in disgrace!