Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yet another line of potential scandal has popped up:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-090016209.html

Claiming income from a defunct company since 2006. Yikes!

---

Ddi you actually read the article? The "defunct" company changed its name (because it went from a LTD to a LLC) and is not defunct. Thomas reported income using the entity's old name, which had an Ltd in the back of its name and he didn't know it changed to LLC in the back of his name. At this point, I'm calling utter BS, and thinking it no longer is aboutThomas' sins but orchestrating an attempt to make him step down with misleading article titles on matters without substance, by media with agenda. Tom, I think you are part of the problem by retweeting articles without understanding what they say or mean. That is a modus operandi on this board..

---

It wasn't a name change either, if you want to be technical about it. The original entity was shut down for unknown reasons and a new entity was created and assumed the land leasing business.

I agree that this is a small sin but in light of the larger context shows he doesn't take disclosure too seriously. Not a great look for the Supreme Court.

---

Seriously? The new entity was created and assumed the business with the same name except LTD was replaced by LLC. Perhaps a reorganization into a LLC? Does that sound to you like a defunct business? I would expect that from Dajo, but not someone with your background.

---

Yes, seriously. My initial reaction was similar to yours, but this doesn't match up with the claims in the post article. My best guess is that they dissolved the old partnership to leave some liabilities behind or maybe it's just 100% tax driven, I don't really know. That's why I said unknown reasons.

Quote:

---

Over the last two decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has reported on required financial disclosure forms that his family received rental income totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership.

But that company a Nebraska real estate firm launched in the 1980s by his wife and her relatives has not existed since 2006.

That year, the family real estate company was shut down and a separate firm was created, state incorporation records show. The similarly named firm assumed control of the shuttered company's land leasing business, according to property records.

...
Ginger Limited Partnership was created in 1982 to sell and lease real estate, state incorporation records show, and its partners were Ginni Thomas, her parents and her three siblings.
...
The firm was dissolved in March 2006. Around the same time, Ginger Holdings, LLC was created in Nebraska, according to state records, which list the same business address as the shuttered company and name Joanne K. Elliott, the sister of Ginni Thomas, as manager.

The same month, the leases for more than 200 residential lots in Ginger Woods and Ginger Cove were transferred from Ginger Limited Partnership to Ginger Holdings, LLC, property records in Douglas County show.

---

---

Hey U2 and Wife - haven't visited here in awhile, but good to see you still educating folks here.

My guess is that this was a conversion from a partnership to a limited liability company. My guess is that the financial advisor recommended that they convert the entity to an LLC since LLC has no downside relative to a partnership. They are both pass through entities for tax purposes, but an LLC does not require one person to assume the liabilities like a partnership would required from the general partner. Instead you just have a operating manager without the personal liabilities. Really no reason not to convert.

I would guess Justice Thomas took this action based on advice from his estate lawyer and tax attorney.

I disagree with you, U2, that this was ever a defunct entity other than as a mechanism for pure conversion. A conversion is a tax free transaction without having to realize capital gains. It would be idiotic to do what the author implied, which would only accelerate capital gains. There is no benefit even from reducing the liability of the former GP since the legacy liability would survive any dissolution.

I don't think this was intended to be a hit piece. I think, like most dumb articles, this was based on ignorance and laziness. And people with equal ignorance of the corporate and tax laws would perpetuate this as something nefarious. Happens all the time from both the right and the left. Pure laziness by the author since it would have taken a 5 minute fact check with a corporate lawyer for the author to understand this.

Doesn't mean Justice Thomas is not an embarrassment, with Ginni shamefully perpetuating the election lies.

Anyway, came back because I am just that happy that Fox is gone.

Now that I am retired, always fun to discuss corporate law. However, everything else here, including the same persons still engaging in mindless personal attacks, is still boring as ever. Take care you two.

---

Nice to hear from you and thanks for your input.

I guess I was indexing on the fact that the leases were "transferred." I spent most of my M&A career trying to avoid transfers like these so I would have assumed there was some tax-friendly way to structure it such that there wasn't an explicit transfer but maybe this is the small business way of doing it? Still I shudder at having to deal with 200 lease transfers.

If this was a simple conversion, why wouldn't they have done a conversion as provided by the Nebraska corporate code? Wouldn't have required a dissolution because the entity would still be the same. Or if that would trigger some issue, maybe drop the LTD under a new LLC?

Admittedly, I didn't do real estate work, but it just seems to me that creating a new entity, individually assigning contracts and shuttering the original entity is creating a fair amount of pointless and expensive work and that there would have to have been a reason before doing so. Converting a pass-through partnership into a pass-through LLC should be a tax-free transaction, so why create all of the extra work?

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yet another line of potential scandal has popped up:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-090016209.html

Claiming income from a defunct company since 2006. Yikes!

---

Ddi you actually read the article? The "defunct" company changed its name (because it went from a LTD to a LLC) and is not defunct. Thomas reported income using the entity's old name, which had an Ltd in the back of its name and he didn't know it changed to LLC in the back of his name. At this point, I'm calling utter BS, and thinking it no longer is aboutThomas' sins but orchestrating an attempt to make him step down with misleading article titles on matters without substance, by media with agenda. Tom, I think you are part of the problem by retweeting articles without understanding what they say or mean. That is a modus operandi on this board..

---

It wasn't a name change either, if you want to be technical about it. The original entity was shut down for unknown reasons and a new entity was created and assumed the land leasing business.

I agree that this is a small sin but in light of the larger context shows he doesn't take disclosure too seriously. Not a great look for the Supreme Court.

---

Seriously? The new entity was created and assumed the business with the same name except LTD was replaced by LLC. Perhaps a reorganization into a LLC? Does that sound to you like a defunct business? I would expect that from Dajo, but not someone with your background.

---

Yes, seriously. My initial reaction was similar to yours, but this doesn't match up with the claims in the post article. My best guess is that they dissolved the old partnership to leave some liabilities behind or maybe it's just 100% tax driven, I don't really know. That's why I said unknown reasons.

Quote:

---

Over the last two decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has reported on required financial disclosure forms that his family received rental income totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership.

But that company a Nebraska real estate firm launched in the 1980s by his wife and her relatives has not existed since 2006.

That year, the family real estate company was shut down and a separate firm was created, state incorporation records show. The similarly named firm assumed control of the shuttered company's land leasing business, according to property records.

...
Ginger Limited Partnership was created in 1982 to sell and lease real estate, state incorporation records show, and its partners were Ginni Thomas, her parents and her three siblings.
...
The firm was dissolved in March 2006. Around the same time, Ginger Holdings, LLC was created in Nebraska, according to state records, which list the same business address as the shuttered company and name Joanne K. Elliott, the sister of Ginni Thomas, as manager.

The same month, the leases for more than 200 residential lots in Ginger Woods and Ginger Cove were transferred from Ginger Limited Partnership to Ginger Holdings, LLC, property records in Douglas County show.

---

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yet another line of potential scandal has popped up:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-090016209.html

Claiming income from a defunct company since 2006. Yikes!

---

Ddi you actually read the article? The "defunct" company changed its name (because it went from a LTD to a LLC) and is not defunct. Thomas reported income using the entity's old name, which had an Ltd in the back of its name and he didn't know it changed to LLC in the back of his name. At this point, I'm calling utter BS, and thinking it no longer is aboutThomas' sins but orchestrating an attempt to make him step down with misleading article titles on matters without substance, by media with agenda. Tom, I think you are part of the problem by retweeting articles without understanding what they say or mean. That is a modus operandi on this board..

---

It wasn't a name change either, if you want to be technical about it. The original entity was shut down for unknown reasons and a new entity was created and assumed the land leasing business.

I agree that this is a small sin but in light of the larger context shows he doesn't take disclosure too seriously. Not a great look for the Supreme Court.

---

Seriously? The new entity was created and assumed the business with the same name except LTD was replaced by LLC. Perhaps a reorganization into a LLC? Does that sound to you like a defunct business? I would expect that from Dajo, but not someone with your background.

---

Yes, seriously. My initial reaction was similar to yours, but this doesn't match up with the claims in the post article. My best guess is that they dissolved the old partnership to leave some liabilities behind or maybe it's just 100% tax driven, I don't really know. That's why I said unknown reasons.

Quote:

---

Over the last two decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has reported on required financial disclosure forms that his family received rental income totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership.

But that company a Nebraska real estate firm launched in the 1980s by his wife and her relatives has not existed since 2006.

That year, the family real estate company was shut down and a separate firm was created, state incorporation records show. The similarly named firm assumed control of the shuttered company's land leasing business, according to property records.

...
Ginger Limited Partnership was created in 1982 to sell and lease real estate, state incorporation records show, and its partners were Ginni Thomas, her parents and her three siblings.
...
The firm was dissolved in March 2006. Around the same time, Ginger Holdings, LLC was created in Nebraska, according to state records, which list the same business address as the shuttered company and name Joanne K. Elliott, the sister of Ginni Thomas, as manager.

The same month, the leases for more than 200 residential lots in Ginger Woods and Ginger Cove were transferred from Ginger Limited Partnership to Ginger Holdings, LLC, property records in Douglas County show.

---

---

Hey U2 and Wife - haven't visited here in awhile, but good to see you still educating folks here.

My guess is that this was a conversion from a partnership to a limited liability company. My guess is that the financial advisor recommended that they convert the entity to an LLC since LLC has no downside relative to a partnership. They are both pass through entities for tax purposes, but an LLC does not require one person to assume the liabilities like a partnership would required from the general partner. Instead you just have a operating manager without the personal liabilities. Really no reason not to convert.

I would guess Justice Thomas took this action based on advice from his estate lawyer and tax attorney.

I disagree with you, U2, that this was ever a defunct entity other than as a mechanism for pure conversion. A conversion is a tax free transaction without having to realize capital gains. It would be idiotic to do what the author implied, which would only accelerate capital gains. There is no benefit even from reducing the liability of the former GP since the legacy liability would survive any dissolution.

I don't think this was intended to be a hit piece. I think, like most dumb articles, this was based on ignorance and laziness. And people with equal ignorance of the corporate and tax laws would perpetuate this as something nefarious. Happens all the time from both the right and the left. Pure laziness by the author since it would have taken a 5 minute fact check with a corporate lawyer for the author to understand this.

Doesn't mean Justice Thomas is not an embarrassment, with Ginni shamefully perpetuating the election lies.

Anyway, came back because I am just that happy that Fox is gone.

Now that I am retired, always fun to discuss corporate law. However, everything else here, including the same persons still engaging in mindless personal attacks, is still boring as ever. Take care you two.

---

Nice to hear from you and thanks for your input.

I guess I was indexing on the fact that the leases were "transferred." I spent most of my M&A career trying to avoid transfers like these so I would have assumed there was some tax-friendly way to structure it such that there wasn't an explicit transfer but maybe this is the small business way of doing it? Still I shudder at having to deal with 200 lease transfers.

If this was a simple conversion, why wouldn't they have done a conversion as provided by the Nebraska corporate code? Wouldn't have required a dissolution because the entity would still be the same. Or if that would trigger some issue, maybe drop the LTD under a new LLC?

Admittedly, I didn't do real estate work, but it just seems to me that creating a new entity, individually assigning contracts and shuttering the original entity is creating a fair amount of pointless and expensive work and that there would have to have been a reason before doing so. Converting a pass-through partnership into a pass-through LLC should be a tax-free transaction, so why create all of the extra work?

---

I'm like you, with my primary private practice focused on M&A. Even as a GC, my direct reports were responsible for entity management and governance support fortax strategies, so I didn't get into a lot of these issues other than in connection with tax free dispositions for spin offs and reverse morris trusts. However, my financial and tax advisors and my estate lawyers are more into this, and they would give me strategies like these that my estate lawyer would execute. Maybe they wanted to reorganize in another state? Not sure what exactly happened based on the article, but based on timing, common sense would indicate that this was a tax-free transfer to another form of entity organization.

I suspect the leases provided for unilateral assignments to affiliates.

---

okaydo said:

---

One thing the media keeps missing about the Clarence Thomas scandal.

Harlan Crow is chairman of the board of the American Enterprise Institute. AEI may not be a direct litigant, but it files MANY amicus briefs with the court.

That creates a huge conflict of interest for Thomas. https://t.co/Ha5BbFn4Pr

— Steven Greenhouse (@greenhousenyt) April 14, 2023

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

That was the best history riff on this board in years. Thank you.

I think people do not like or accept corruption in congress. It's just that we can't do anything about it.

And for all your complaining about it on the court, what do YOU think should be done about it?

---

Well you can't do anything about judges either, so I'm not buying that excuse.

It really is up to voters on all of this. If the only process is impeachment for SCOTUS judges, then elect a Congress that will police ethics. If members of Congress or the executive branch acts badly then elect people who pass laws and that will enforce them. The fact is that voters don't demand accountability, just people who express views they like. It used to be we had politicians who were part time. That doesn't work in a today's complex world, but now we have politicians that use the profession as a way of getting very rich. The last set of presidential elections you had billionaires facing multi-millionaires.

---

It is NOT up to voters. This country does not have majority governance for the executive or half the So Congress - the half that confirms judges.

---

Will it I s nice to know the voters can do something about the House. So you're saying the current President and Senate are the problem in impeaching Thomas or setting up ethics rules. Got it.

You know, the only Justice Im aware that faced a serious impeachment charge due to corruption was a bi-partisan effort, forcing Fortas' resignation. The supermajority of voters most of been on the ball back in those days.

---

I'm going to side with dajo on this.

We have a bit of a myth that it all comes back to The People.

However, when people can be deluded and manipulated by the powerful forces of marketing, promotion, and flat out lying, then that's not the case.

In stock trading parlance, not everybody is operating with perfect information.

And what controls the information that people DO get?

1. Money
2. Party structure

Thus, it doesn't all come down to the people but money and party. That's what controls America. And money controls party, ultimately, so…


Sure, progress has occurred over the Loooooong haul, but it's too slow in the short run. Why? Vested interests put forth money to slow down change from the status quo which benefits them.

---

yes, let's just give up.

As for Dajo being right on anything dealing with the legal world, his latest being "Abe Fortas resigned becaused Nixon wanted to pick his replacement and his AG was witch-hunting him and because the naive Supreme Court (not used to the tricks of Nixon and the future Republican Party) turned on Fortas. The voters had nothing to do with it:


First load of crap: Nixon's AD led a witch hunt that took Fortas down. Actually the scandal that took him down, the Wolfson Foundation, was revealed by Life Magazine. When Life Magazine came out with the revelations, Republicans in Congress and Nixon demanded that Fortas resign. That was not surprising. What was remarkable by today's standards is that Democrats demanded his ouster, too. Walter Mondale of Minnesota was the first Democratic senator to do so, and Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland, a liberal Democrat who had been one of Fortas's biggest supporters, soon followed, and soon it was landslide even though Nixon would appoint his successor, which would help to flip the court from a liberal majority to a conservative one. The AD never had a chance to to even start an investigation on the Wolfson scandal before Fortas had even resigned. The other problem was the scheme, while unethical, didn't violate any laws (which even Nixon concede). So why the BS about investigations?

Second load of crap: A naive Supreme Court turned on Fortas. Democratic members of wait for it, in the Democratic controlled House, you know the guys who were elected by voters, came out and said Fortas would be impeached, and should resign. Then Chef Justice Warren convinced Fortas in was in his interest to resign, and not go through being impeached. Warren had is own personal interest in having Fortas leave.


Source: The Lawyer's Conscience: A History of American Lawyer Ethicsgoogle.comhttps://books.google.com books

Fun fact: Nixon appointed Harry Blackman to Fortas' seat. Blackman later penned the majority decision in Wade v. Roe and is considered a moderate liberal, and in many areas more liberal than corporate attorney Fortas.


Fun facts about Abe Fortas, none of which were investigated by Nixon's AG, who never investigated Fortas:

1) his former law partner Paul Porter (the Porter of Arnold & Porter) set up a gig for Fortas to teach summer school at American University. That probably wouldn't have been all that controversial, except Fortas's salary wasn't paid by American University. Rather Arnold & Porter clients, many of whom had cases heading to the Supreme Court paid the summer school salary to Fortas. The payment was $15,000 which doesn't sound like much today, but was 40% of the salary he earned as a Supreme Court Justice. This scandal caused a filibuster of Johnson's attempt to have Fortas replace Justice Warren as Chief Justice. Warren was looking to retire, and be replaced by someone with similar legal philosophy, but his resignation was contingent upon a suitable successor being approved. It also represented a repeated pattern, where Fortas clients would obtain tax deductions for donating to tax-exempt entities where Fortas spoke to obtain tax deductions, and the tax-exempt orgiaztiom they paid Fortas for speaking.

2) Fortas also had an unfortunate habit of continuing to offer advice to President Lyndon Johnson, whom he had long advised, after joining the Supreme Court.

3) Fortas acted as a fixer through out Johnson's career. Fortas was known for the destruction of Don Reynolds, who sold a a very large insurance policy to Johnson with a premium kickback scheme. There was concern that Reynolds would testify in a case against a Johnson associate with information that would damage Johnson. Somehow Fortas received Reynold's confidential army file and threatened to leak information to the media if Reynolds testified, and Reynolds disappeared.

4) Fortas's role in realign with the unfortunate Walter Jenkins who worked for Johnson. Fortas was the first Johnson associate to learn of Jenkins' arrest; and in typical Fortas fashion, he convinced the Washington press to sit on the story until Johnson was notified and word of Jenkins' resignation was released. When the story was made public prematurely by a wire service, Fortas was upset and attempted to force a White House boycott the media that had released the information. This incident contributed to Fortas's mistrust of the press-a philosophy which reflected itself in Fortas's later judicial opinions against freedom of the press.

There are many Fortas stories - these are just a few.

---

The biggest proponent of giving up and doing nothing on this board is wiaf. Whether the topic is Court ethics (need landslide elections) or wealth inequality (need Constitutional amendments) the answer from his is, sadly, there is nothing we can do.

For anybody interested in how Richard Nixon ousted Abe Fortas from the Supreme Court so he could flip the Court, you should read this 2001 piece by John Dean.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/therehnquistchoice.htm

In it you can learn how Nixon's DOJ fed controversial, but not illegal, information to Life Magazine about Abe Fortas' dealings with criminal Louis Wolfson. How Nixon's DOJ tried to get Wolfson to implicate Fortas in criminal conduct, but that did not happen. How Nixon's AG, John Mitchell, met with Chief Justice Earl Warren to hint to him that a criminal investigation was ongoing but if Fortas resigned it would end and save the Court from the humiliation. This was a bluff, but this was before the unethical nature of the Nixon White House was known and so Justice Warren and the rest of the Court turned on Fortas. How Nixon's DOJ reopened old cases on Fortas' wife and law partner (which had been previously investigated and cleared) in order to keep up the pressure on Fortas to resign.

Through this conduct, Nixon was able to pick two Court Justices (replacing Warren and Fortas) and end the old FDR liberal order on the Court.

There was no impeachment of Abe Fortas. Just political opponents of his kicking up dirt (including conservative Dixiecrats). Fortas resigned, pressured out by a corrupt President. The voters had nothing to do with it. While Fortas broke no laws, his conduct was unethical, as was the conduct of much of the Court back then and historically. Stronger laws have been created and should be enforced.

---

calbear93 said:

---

I'm like you, with my primary private practice focused on M&A. Even as a GC, my direct reports were responsible for entity management and governance support fortax strategies, so I didn't get into a lot of these issues other than in connection with tax free dispositions for spin offs and reverse morris trusts. However, my financial and tax advisors and my estate lawyers are more into this, and they would give me strategies like these that my estate lawyer would execute. Maybe they wanted to reorganize in another state? Not sure what exactly happened based on the article, but based on timing, common sense would indicate that this was a tax-free transfer to another form of entity organization.

I suspect the leases provided for unilateral assignments to affiliates.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think you missed the issue, which is was clearly a continuation of the business, and commons sense should dictate regardless of structure or intent, the business was conveyed over to the new entity. Thomas reported the activity of the "defunct business", just using the name of the old entity rather than under the new name . We can discuss structuring the transaction and the intent of their structure all day, but it would be obvious to a second year associate that the business itself was continued, and not defunct, and Thomas reported the income.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I actually was a real estate and tax lawyer for 30 years or so, and it also was rather obvious to me that based on the timing, this was a tax free transfer. No one in real estate does any other kind of concurrent transfers on a taxable basis, absent unusual circumstances such as expiration of loss or deduction carryforwards (e..g., expiring charitable deductions) on a taxable basis. Given the absences of CRTs or otter estate planning devises in the vesting involved, the likelihood of such circumstances seems remote. That Thomas didn't keep pace in the disclosures with the entity names his attorneys used to accomplish the transactions would NOT lead any lawyer to the conclusion the business became defunct. Obviously it didn't, and you need not look further than the vesting I'm also confused by the extra steps taken, but then again I didn't practice in the applicable States, to know why the structure appearing in the vesting was used. Also, the common practice by estate attorneys is to add extra steps in deeding the property, that actually don't reflect the actual transactions that would be shown by direct deeding of the property, so that title officers may follow the substance (as opposed to form) of the transactions when writing title policies in the future.

---

calbear93 said:

---

Doesn't mean Justice Thomas is not an embarrassment, with Ginni shamefully perpetuating the election lies.

Anyway, came back because I am just that happy that Fox is gone.

Now that I am retired, always fun to discuss corporate law. However, everything else here, including the same persons still engaging in mindless personal attacks, is still boring as ever. Take care you two.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

okaydo said:

---

One thing the media keeps missing about the Clarence Thomas scandal.

Harlan Crow is chairman of the board of the American Enterprise Institute. AEI may not be a direct litigant, but it files MANY amicus briefs with the court.

That creates a huge conflict of interest for Thomas. https://t.co/Ha5BbFn4Pr

— Steven Greenhouse (@greenhousenyt) April 14, 2023

---

On that basis we might as well remove the whole court. Justices get all sorts of benefits for regularly speaking to parties that file amicus briefs. Let's start with ACLU.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I'm like you, with my primary private practice focused on M&A. Even as a GC, my direct reports were responsible for entity management and governance support fortax strategies, so I didn't get into a lot of these issues other than in connection with tax free dispositions for spin offs and reverse morris trusts. However, my financial and tax advisors and my estate lawyers are more into this, and they would give me strategies like these that my estate lawyer would execute. Maybe they wanted to reorganize in another state? Not sure what exactly happened based on the article, but based on timing, common sense would indicate that this was a tax-free transfer to another form of entity organization.

I suspect the leases provided for unilateral assignments to affiliates.

---

I considered those points as well but the LLC was formed in Nebraska as well (see here). One of my first assignments as a first year was to run a corporate reorg to rationalize a bunch of domestic subs for a large multi-national. Much of what I did involved merging various LLCs/partnerships/corps into other state's subs - typically Delaware. It's pretty straight forward which is why I found this odd.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think you missed the issue, which is was clearly a continuation of the business, and commons sense should dictate regardless of structure or intent, the business was conveyed over to the new entity. Thomas reported the activity of the "defunct business", just using the name of the old entity rather than under the new name . We can discuss structuring the transaction and the intent of their structure all day, but it would be obvious to a second year associate that the business itself was continued, and not defunct, and Thomas reported the income.

---

I'm not sure what issue you think I missed. Like you, I don't think this is a big deal but I was pursuing an academic/technical point which is that this wasn't a conversion and by all appearances it was not a conversion. I agree it's odd to call it a "defunct business" and that the reporting on this can be misleading, but it's also misleading to say that this is a continuation or conversion when we don't have the facts to support it.

If the new co took 100% of the old co's assets and liabilities and the goal was merely to change the entity type, there are easier ways to accomplish it - eg just convert it under Nebraska law which provides for a more or less check the box solution. We're lawyers so we know that there was a reason they didn't do the easy thing, we just don't know what that reason was.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I actually was a real estate and tax lawyer for 30 years or so, and it also was rather obvious to me that based on the timing, this was a tax free transfer. No one in real estate does any other kind of concurrent transfers on a taxable basis, absent unusual circumstances such as expiration of loss or deduction carryforwards (e..g., expiring charitable deductions) on a taxable basis. Given the absences of CRTs or otter estate planning devises in the vesting involved, the likelihood of such circumstances seems remote. That Thomas didn't keep pace in the disclosures with the entity names his attorneys used to accomplish the transactions would NOT lead any lawyer to the conclusion the business became defunct. Obviously it didn't, and you need not look further than the vesting I'm also confused by the extra steps taken, but then again I didn't practice in the applicable States, to know why the structure appearing in the vesting was used. Also, the common practice by estate attorneys is to add extra steps in deeding the property, that actually don't reflect the actual transactions that would be shown by direct deeding of the property, so that title officers may follow the substance (as opposed to form) of the transactions when writing title policies in the future.

---

I think you're misunderstanding the situation if you think Thomas had attorneys doing these things. The real estate business in question belonged to his wife's family. He and his wife appear to be passive recipients of income but they weren't managing the business and were likely uninvolved in the transaction by which the assets were moved to the new LLC. If this had been orchestrated on Thomas' behalf by his attorneys, it would mean he has attorneys and they should have been reviewing his financial disclosures as well.

I suspect that he doesn't take his disclosure very seriously and doesn't have any meaningful outside help involved in preparation. Why would he spend extra money when being correct is unhelpful to him?

Ultimately I agree that this article drew strange conclusions and lacks enough information to really understand what happened but if we want to be technically correct we should also be careful about our assumptions. Again, all based on the facts at hand.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think you're misunderstanding the situation if you think Thomas had attorneys doing these things. The real estate business in question belonged to his wife's family. He and his wife appear to be passive recipients of income but they weren't managing the business and were likely uninvolved in the transaction by which the assets were moved to the new LLC. If this had been orchestrated on Thomas' behalf by his attorneys, it would mean he has attorneys and they should have been reviewing his financial disclosures as well.

I suspect that he doesn't take his disclosure very seriously and doesn't have any meaningful outside help involved in preparation. Why would he spend extra money when being correct is unhelpful to him?

Ultimately I agree that this article drew strange conclusions and lacks enough information to really understand what happened but if we want to be technically correct we should also be careful about our assumptions. Again, all based on the facts at hand.

---

Supreme Court Justices release unanimous 9-0 letter slamming Democrat Senators over fake Clarence Thomas “ethics” scandal…https://t.co/lvVtXK53Jw

— Revolver News (@RevolverNewsUSA) April 28, 2023

ICYMI from April 25, 2023:

All 9 justices issued an extremely rare--even unanimous--statement.

It details how and why the Supreme Court decides recusals on cases and other ethical issues.

It is carefully written, well-reasoned, and entirely convincing.

It should put to rest… pic.twitter.com/teNkQgSYd5

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 27, 2023

‘Only Supreme Court justices refuse to allow their conduct to be investigated … It’s a cover-up in plain view.’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse questioned what Justice Clarence Thomas knew about his wife’s ‘insurrection’ activities and when during a hearing on SCOTUS ethics reforms. pic.twitter.com/G74kTmXi3g

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) May 3, 2023

During today's hearing, @JohnCornyn played a clip from the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Judge Clarence Thomas. The hearing was presided over by then-Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden.

32 years later, the "high tech lynching" resonates more than ever. pic.twitter.com/llWj67ZpXr

— The Article III Project (A3P) (@Article3Project) May 2, 2023

Clarence Thomas Raised Him. Harlan Crow Paid His Tuition. — ⁦@propublica⁩ reporting https://t.co/FBwElSOfvW

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) May 4, 2023

ProPublica reported that Harlan Crow, a prominent Republican donor, paid tuition at Hidden Lake Academy, a boarding school in Georgia, as well as at Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia, for Mark Martin, for whom Thomas had legal custody. https://t.co/SPHp3sPRRi

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 4, 2023

A bank statement that showed Crow paid $6,200 in monthly tuition at Hidden Lake Academy in July 2009 and quoted Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school, as saying that Crow “picked up the tab” for the entire time Martin was a student there, about a year.… pic.twitter.com/itmaB6I41A

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 4, 2023

ProPublica said Thomas did not respond to questions about the tuition arrangement.

Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday from The Washington Post. https://t.co/SPHp3sPRRi

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 4, 2023

dajo9 said:

---

I just want government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Majority rule and minority rights. America has never had it but that is what I want.

---

bearister said:

---

Hey Mr. Obituary Thread Cop, your post belongs in my dedicated AI thread!


Official BI Repository Thread for Robots, Self Driving Cars and Misc. AI | Bear Insider


https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/113734

---

Corrupt to the core.

— Gunnar Sauermann (@GunnaR667) May 4, 2023

bearister said:

---

It is good to know that Thomas is just a garden variety crook like Scalia was. Nothing sophisticated.

Republicans must currently be spending millions in investigation fees trying to turn up Liberal justice corruption to help take the sting out of this (although charges of corruption make most Republicans just giggle).

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I just want government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Majority rule and minority rights. America has never had it but that is what I want.

---

My brother who works in a secret department at Apple sent me a video about the fears of AI.

First it was AI-engage: how to get people to stay on yoursocial media platform.

Coming is AI-mimic or AI-trick: deep fake, image and voice fooling, what/who is real?

Next is AI-persuade: steer behavior for all sorts of things.


The speakers say that 2024 will be the last free human run election.
AI technology is advancing so rapidly, exponentially, and various AI types are cross training.

So, I guess, good luck with that, dajo.


From brother:
" This is the best synthesis of the era we're entering. Very very few people understand what's coming."

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

What did he steal?

---

The actual story of the latest ProPublica high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas is that he took in his Great-Nephew, who was living in housing projects, and raised him as his own, proving once again that Justice Thomas and Ginni are better people than any of their critics.

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 4, 2023