DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

Yep, appearing before a Federal Judge is like going before The Wizard of Oz. Their benches always had lots of elevation.

Harlan Crow bought a $133,363 HOUSE from Clarence Thomas



https://mol.im/a/11970619

---

Sure there is not a digit missing? Even in Georgia, that seems really low.

---

Nope.

Crow's companies bought a number of Savannah, GA properties co-owned by Thomas and members of his family for $133,363. The purchase included the 2 bedroom home of Justice Thomas' moth, Leola. Crow's firm then upgraded it with $36,000 in renovations, including a garage, repaired roof, and a new fence and gate.

Any real estate transaction over $1,000 is required to be reported.
Justice Thomas failed to do so.

---

Wasn't challenging the transaction, just the price s/b higher. Then I just went on Zillow and found the average price in Savannah is $275K. You can't buy an outhouse in most areas of California for $133K or for $275K for that matter.

If I understand correctly, Crow in fact also bought two empty lots. All three properties were co-owned by Thomas, his brother, and his mother, and the article doesn't list their ownership shares. That is somewhat weird vesting and makes you wonder where the Thomas' got the property (more to come).

Apparently Crow flipped the two empty parcels and has given the mother a lifetime estate in her residence, and made improvements. The Propublica article ends weird with a discussion that the area is being gentrified, possibly with the innuendo that Crow will make money on the transaction and possibly is getting a good deal in return for taking care of Thomas' mother (did anyone else get that read?).

There is a major disconnect with all of Propublica articles in that they continue to quote disclosure laws passed by Congress, as opposed to the Judicial Council rules. The federal Judiciary uses the latter guidelines and takes the view that Congress can't set its ethics rules due to separation of powers, though the Judicial Council rules tend to mimic the ethics laws passed by Congress.

The Judicial Council rules do not require disclosure for payments made to relatives such as the filer's mother or brother (the laws passed by Congress may not either). As for the filers such as Thomas:

Rule 315.20(b) provides exceptions for reporting on private residences and I assume Thomas isn't claiming he lived with his mom. Thus, with respect to the sale of real estate:

"Rule 315.40 Transactions
[ol]

(a) Transactions during the reporting period that involve any purchase, sale, or exchange of any property or asset (see: Guide, Vol. 2D, 170) exceeding $1,000 must be reported."

[/ol]The echos the law passed by Congress.

The only possible exception I see is if the Thomas inherited his portion of the properties, to wit, Section 315.4.10 for... "inherited property not held for the production of income that was received by the filer ." If you look at Thomas 's childhood, the properties would have had to come from either the maternal grandparents (in which case the exemption from disclosure applies) or the properties were bought by Thomas and his brother, as the mother was penniless, and Thomas' father had left the scene when Thomas was two. Indeed, Thomas grew-up mostly in maternal grandparents' home with his mother and grandparents. Propublilca looked at the vesting and indicated the properties were indeed inherited from the grandfather, but ignored the fact that the property was inherited and thus not subject to disclosure under Section 315.4.10, because they take the position that Congressional legislation applies, that make no exception for inherited property.

Assuming for arguments sake that Thomas didn't inherit the properties, he should have disclosed the net sale proceeds from his interest in the properties (and not that of his mother or brother). But again, Propublica does say the property was inherited, so under the rules the courts follow, disclosure was not required.

Unfortunately, things often are more complicated than presented in articles by groups with an agenda. That said, Thomas has a history of not reporting matters that are required under Judiciary Council rules, as do many other Justices (note the Judicial Council didn't say its rules appleid to SCOTUS until recent times). Then again, SCOTUS is reluctant (actually, it just doesn't) to enforce any ethics rules, including those by the Judiciary Council, against its own.

Now do Republicans, snowflake.

Justice Clarence Thomas took lawful trips with his best friend of 25 years.

With 0 business before the Supreme Court.

President Biden took his 52-year-old son on an overseas presidential trip.

Who has collected millions for the Bidens from corrupt foreign oligarchs.@NYTimes: pic.twitter.com/BetqsJBPCR

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 13, 2023

Last week, Democrats were feigning concern about Justice Thomas' trips with his best friend of 25 years.

With zero business before the Supreme Court.

This week, Democrats are feigning concern about a *fair-market-value* $130,000 real-estate transaction nearly a decade ago.

Why aren't they interested in Democrat-appointed justices' trips?

Or their amended financial disclosures?

Or the millions from Chinese and Ukrainian oligarchs to Biden's family?

Democrats are simply attempting to chase Justice Thomas off the Supreme Court.

bearister said:

---

I feel sorry for Jared and Ivanka. They have criminality in their DNA. It is analogous to mass murderer Richard Speck and his extra chromosome.
If Ivanka and Jared were criminal defendants, and I was on the jury, I would actually have a moment of compassion for them before I found them guilty on all 75 counts.

---

More than Hunter?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Mr. False Equivalenxy at work.
Hunter was never a govt employee in the WH.
Kushner was.

Duh.

---

Selling access to the white house isn't an employee?

---

I thought people who sold access to the White House were called lobbyists, not employees.

I suspect what is bothering people here is that Judges are supposed to be independent, so when they hear about corruption, or at least conflicts of interest, they get all upset, but when they hear about politicians being corrupt, they just think its more business as usual. A lot of folks have blinders on when they think the present Court has reached new levels of corruption. They simply don't know history.

Bill Douglas was just the tip of the iceberg.

There were guys like Stephen Field who ran for President as a Justice and used his decisions for populist views. For example, despite personally opposing slavery, Field joined the Court's pro-segregation decision in Plessy vs Furgspn and he authored another opinion permitting former Confederate officials to practice law in federal court. His presidential campaign would later tout this opinion as proof that he would appeal to Southern whites if he received the Democratic nomination (which he didn't). He also wasn't above self interest. He came from a family that controlled grain trading . When Illinois enacted a law forbidding price gouging and went after his family, Field responded with an angry opinion.

Or how about James McRreynods? Time magazine's called him "a savagely sarcastic, incredibly reactionary Puritan anti-Semite." McReynolds often would not even open the briefs lawyers filed to prepare him to hear a case until hours before the case was argued, and he frequently spent just a few hours crafting opinions He labeled President Franklin Roosevelt "that crippled son-of-a-***** . . . in the White House," He ordered his staff never to smoke tobacco even on their free time, and dictated where they were allowed to live. During his frequent duck hunting trips, Justice McReynolds would bring along his longtime servant Harry Parker, and he would order Parker to wade through ice-cold water to retrieve the fallen animals in lieu of a bird dog.He refused to speak to Justice Louis Brandeis for Brandeis's first three years on the Court because Brandeis was Jewish, and he forbade contact between his staff and the Jewish Justices Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo. There is no official photograph of the justices for 1924 because the Court's seniority-based seating chart required McReynolds to sit next to Brandeis, and McReynolds simply refused to be photographed next to his Jewish colleague. When Brandeis offered his views in conferences, McReynolds would simply stand up and leaveOn the rare occasions when a woman argued a case before McReynolds's Court, the justice would exclaim "I see the female is here" and walk out of the Courtroom. When Charles Hamilton Houston, the Harvard-educated black attorney who mentored future Justice Thurgood Marshall as Dean of the Howard Law School, argued before the Supreme Court in 1938, McReynolds turned his back on the Courtroom to signal his disapproval. He advised the clerk to "think of my wishes in this matter in your future relations with the darkies." He opined decisions that struck down minimum wage laws, and he was known for accepting large gifts from business interests (which was actually legal on the good old days).

Or good old Abe Fortas, who was on the Court with Wild Bill Douglas. Previously President Johnson's personal lawyer. He resigned rather than be impeached by a bipartisan effort. Fortas had shady dealings through the years (and to go over all of them would make this post too long to be postable), but in 1969, a huge scandal arose. Jusstice Fortas had signed a contract with Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson's foundation to provide unspecified "advice." This contract was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year while serving on the Supreme Court and for the rest of his life , and if his wife survived him, pay his widow for the rest of her life. Wolfson was under investigation for securities violations at the time. The FBI believed that Wolfson, expected that his arrangement with Justice Fortas would help him avoid pending criminal charges and/or assist him in obtaining a presidential pardon. (note: the dollars would be significantly larger in today money).

Despite Fortas later returning the retainer, and recusing himself from Wolfson's cases when they came before the Court, the damage was done. Fortas's judicial reputation had already been damaged by previous scandals, and this was simply too much. Chief Justice Earl Warren persuaded Fortas to resign to avoid lengthy impeachment proceedings, which were in their early stages. Justice Thomas is a lightweight when it comes to Fortas, and the Roberts Court are lightweights compared to the Warren Court.

I get it. But the Judge Thomas house purchase was in 2014. There's agenda's at play here. ProPublica says hi lol.

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?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I get it. But the Judge Thomas house purchase was in 2014. There's agenda's at play here. ProPublica says hi lol.

---

which means this has been going on for a long time?

(Edited: hasn't corrected to has)

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.

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.

Clarence Thomas is so crooked that he can't even lie straight in bed. He is so crooked that he would say anything, but his prayers.*

*Props to Breaker Morant

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.

---

The largest problem we currently have in this regard is cultural deference to the rich and powerful. A secondary problem is the Senate won't impeach.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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..

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.

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.

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..

---

I read the article.
If I did not accurately understand the two entities and the revenue flows, and I did not, I'm sorry.

If you're into journalistic hit jobs, check this one out. I bet it fits!!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jim-jordan-fighter-aligned-trump-131345816.html

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.

concordtom 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..

---

I read the article.
If I did not accurately understand the two entities and the revenue flows, and I did not, I'm sorry.

If you're into journalistic hit jobs, check this one out. I bet it fits!!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jim-jordan-fighter-aligned-trump-131345816.html

---

I'm admittedly not a fan of Jordan, and while it was clear that the author has a bias and agenda, I didn't see this as a pure hit piece. A lot of factual stuff on Jordan that I assume is accurate. The last article you posted on Thomas completely misrepresented what happened probably because the author didn't understand the "defunct" business was simply reorganized from a LTD to a LLC and continued, and Thomas was obviously unaware of the name change. This clearly represents an effort to misrepresent what Thomas did that suggests or organized effort to get rid of Thomas no matter the means. This only shows desperation.

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.

---

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.

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?