SCJ Clarence Thomas Did Not Disclose Wife's Income and Should Resign - ProtectOurElections.org

ThirdChoice

(674 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-11 12:28 PM
Original message

SCJ Clarence Thomas Did Not Disclose Wife's Income and Should Resign - ProtectOurElections.org

Run time: 02:12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woG_Vhm1LuE

Posted on YouTube: January 26, 2011
By YouTube Member: VRAdmin
Views on YouTube: 8

Posted on DU: January 26, 2011
By DU Member: ThirdChoice
Views on DU: 5273

Protect Our Elections Calls On Justice Clarence Thomas To Step Down In Light Of His Admission That He Falsified Twenty Years Of Financial Disclosure Forms
Watchdog Group Also Calls For Criminal Prosecution, Audit Of His Decisions And Ethics Inquiry

Washington, DC: Yesterday, www.ProtectOurElections.org <http://www.ProtectOurElections.org> asked the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his AO 10 Financial Disclosure forms every year since 2003 by falsely swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no non-investment income. http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_DOJ_Letter.pdf Within six hours of our request, Justice Thomas announced that he had amended not seven but twenty years of financial disclosure forms to include his wife�s income. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/justice-clarence-thomas-amends-financial-disclosure-reports-virginia/story?id=12750650 Justice Thomas said that he misunderstood the filing instructions which asked him to check whether his wife had any non-investment income, to which he checked �none.�

Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation�s IRS Form 990s. She then went to work for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field. Last Friday, Common Cause wrote to the Administrative Office of the Courts about this matter, which was reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story

Justice Thomas is facing up to one year in prison and a criminal fine for each false statement charge, and a civil fine of up to $50,000 under 5 U.S.C appendix � 104.

Justice Thomas� conduct is similar to that of an FBI employee who oversaw background investigations for the agency in San Francisco. Rachelle Thomas-Zuill said on a financial disclosure form that she owned three properties with an outstanding mortgage debt of $866,000, when in fact she owned six properties and had a debt of more than $2.2 million. Thomas-Zuill, who joined the FBI 13 years ago, pleaded guilty last week to making false statements to a government agency, a felony. She will be sentenced April 7th by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose.

The Department of Justice civilly prosecuted two other recent false statement cases. In United States v. Dr. William L. Smith, a NASA scientist was charged with violating 18 U.S.C section 208(a,)and he settled the case for a substantial fine. In United States v. John R. Van Rosendale, a DOE employee failed under 5 U.S.C. app. � 104 to file a termination financial disclosure report when he left his Government position and he was also fined.

�Yesterday, we asked the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against Justice Thomas for his knowing and willful false statements under oath,� said attorney and campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese. �In response, Justice Thomas admitted that he made false statements on 20 years of disclosure forms, but that it was just a simple misunderstanding. How many criminal defendants have said the same thing but were not offered the same opportunity to correct or amend their statements before being prosecuted? How many cases has Justice Thomas sat in judgment of where people were charged with similar conduct? How many lawyers would have asked for Justice Thomas� recusal had the disclosure forms been accurate? Supreme Court Justices are supposed to know the law. Yet, Justice Thomas wants to be treated differently than others who committed similar conduct. His �misunderstanding� excuse should be argued before a federal jury rather than to a committee that has no authority to grant him immunity from prosecution. No, Justice Thomas cannot be allowed to merely amend his forms without full accountability. We call for him to step down as Supreme Court Justice and for a complete audit of all cases in which he sat to determine if his lack of disclosure created a conflict of interest or undermined the fairness of the judgment. We also call for a criminal investigation by career prosecutors at the Department of Justice and an ethics investigation. Anything less would make a mockery of financial disclosure law, undermine respect for the law, and create the appearance that those in powerful positions can violate the law with impunity.�

Source: www.ProtectOurElections.org <http://www.ProtectOurElections.org>