This (below) from a Legal Blog. Turns out there are other people currently under indictment who did the exact same thing as Thomas did in not reporting his wife’s income.
Why should Thomas be the beneficiary of “Special Justice”? One of the cornerstones of the Justice system is that the Judges obey the laws that they are trying and sentencing people for. If a Judge walked into a bank with a gun and held it up, I think most people would recognize the problem with the impartiality of the same Judge sitting on a case trying bank robbers. That is exactly the problem Thomas’ misconduct presents.
Back when Hoover was in charge of the early FBI, one of the rules he established was that the behavior and conduct of his FBI Agents had to be beyond reproach. Urban Legend has it he refused to hire FBI Agents with so much as Parking Tickets – because that showed a disregard for the law.
I think it is time that the Justice Department indict Mr. Thomas, for what is clearly a crime – and for Mr. Thomas to step down from the Court.
News reports on the Thomas case generally have referenced 5 U.S. Code app. section 104, which calls for a misdemeanor punishment of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation. Given that Thomas apparently violated the statute for roughly 20 years, he could wind up with a substantial penalty under that law.
But the punishment becomes much more severe under 18 U.S.C. 1001, which also appears to apply in the Thomas case. It is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison, and a former official with the U.S. House of Representatives currently is under indictment for actions that almost mirror those in the Thomas case. Reports POE:
While 5 USC app section 104 makes this conduct a misdemeanor punishable for up to a year in prison, 18 USC section 1001 is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison. In fact, Fraser Verrusio, former Policy Director for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is awaiting trial under section 1001 for not reporting income on his “United States House of Representatives Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2003.”
You can read more about the charges against Fraser Verrusio at the link below. It appears that he was given no opportunity to amend his filings:
Verrusio once worked for U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-AK), and the casehas received extensive coverage in the Alaska press. The prosecution reportedly grew out of the Jack Abramoff affair.
The U.S. Supreme Court, the very court upon which Thomas now sits, has a history of treating such violations as felonies. Reports POE:
Moreover, in UNITED STATES v. WOODWARD, 469 U.S. 105 (1985), in a case decided by the Supreme Court, the defendant, after checking the “no” box on a U.S. Customs form, was punished for both the false statement (18 USC section 1001) violation and the misdemeanor charge of failing to report the currency itself — all as a result of checking the “no” box.
You can check out the Woodward case at the following link:
As we reported in a recent post, domestic icon Martha Stewart and sports stars Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Marion Jones are among those who have run afoul of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Stewart and Jones already have served prison terms, while the Clemens and Bonds cases are pending.