Clarence Thomas has for years claimed income from a defunct real estate firm


The misstatements, which began when a family business transferred its holdings to another company, are part of a pattern that has raised questions about how the Supreme Court justice views his obligation to accurately report details about his finances to the public.


NYT
Thomas’s disclosure history is in the spotlight after ProPublica revealed that a Texas billionaire took him on lavish vacations and also bought from Thomas and his relatives a Georgia home where his mother lives, a transaction that was not disclosed on the forms. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)

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.

Since that time, however, Thomas has continued to report income from the defunct company — between $50,000 and $100,000 annually in recent years — and there is no mention of the newer firm, Ginger Holdings, LLC, on the forms.

The previously unreported misstatement might be dismissed as a paperwork error. But it is among a series of errors and omissions that Thomas has made on required annual financial disclosure forms over the past several decades, a review of those records shows. Together, they have raised questions about how seriously Thomas views his responsibility to accurately report details about his finances to the public.

Thomas’s disclosure history is in the spotlight after ProPublica revealed this month that a Texas billionaire took him on lavish vacations and also bought from Thomas and his relatives a Georgia home where his mother lives, a transaction that was not disclosed on the forms. Thomas said in a statement that colleagues he did not name told him he did not have to report the vacations and that he has always tried to comply with disclosure guidelines. He has not publicly addressed the property transaction.

In 2011, after the watchdog group Common Cause raised red flags, Thomas updated years of his financial disclosure reports to include employment details for his wife, conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas. The justice said at the time that he had not understood the filing instructions. In 2020, he was forced to revise his disclosure forms after a different watchdog group found he had failed to report reimbursements for trips to speak at two law schools.

A judicial ethics expert said the pattern was troubling.

“Any presumption in favor of Thomas’s integrity and commitment to comply with the law is gone. His assurances and promises cannot be trusted. Is there more? What’s the whole story? The nation needs to know,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York University.

Gillers said all three branches of government should investigate Thomas’s compliance or noncompliance with federal ethics law. “The Supreme Court has been the glue that has held the republic together since 1790 with the Civil War the only interruption. We need the public to respect it even when it disagrees with it and to understand why it is important. Generally, the public has,” he said. “But that respect is now in serious jeopardy, and others must do something to stop the free fall.”

Thomas did not respond to emailed questions sent through a court spokeswoman. His wife also did not respond to requests for comment.

Thomas’s income from the firm he describes as “Ginger, Ltd., Partnership” on the financial disclosure forms has grown substantially over the last decade, though the precise amounts are unknown because the forms require only that ranges be reported. In total, he has reported receiving between $270,000 to $750,000 from the firm since 2006, describing it as “rent.” Thomas’s salary as a justice this year is $285,000.

The company’s roots trace back to two lakeside neighborhoods developed decades ago by Ginni Thomas’s late parents in a community in Douglas County, just outside of Omaha.

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 owned and leased out residential lots in two developments, Ginger Woods and Ginger Cove, collecting rent annually from each occupied plot of land, according to copies of lease agreements on file with the county.

When he was nominated to a federal appeals court in 1990, Thomas listed the firm in a financial statement as one of his wife’s assets — worth $15,000 at the time.

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.

Reached by phone, Elliott referred questions about the two companies to Ginni Thomas.

“You could call her and she could answer anything that she wants you to know,” Elliott said before hanging up.

Ginni Thomas is not named in state incorporation records related to Ginger Holdings, LLC.

In his most recent disclosure, in 2021, Thomas estimated that his family’s interest in Ginger Limited Partnership, the defunct firm, was worth between $250,000 and $500,000. He reported receiving an income from it between $50,000 and $100,000 that year.

On Friday, congressional Democrats with oversight of federal courts cited Thomas’s “apparent pattern of noncompliance with disclosure requirements” in calling on the Judicial Conference — the policymaking body for the federal courts — to refer him to the attorney general for an investigation into whether he violated federal ethics laws.

In addition to the recent revelations about Thomas’s financial relationship with Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire, they cited a period in the 2000s in which Thomas failed to disclose his wife’s employment as required by law until the omission was reported by the watchdog group Common Cause.

Ginni Thomas earned more than $686,000 from the conservative Heritage Foundation from 2003 until 2007, according to the nonprofit’s tax forms. Clarence Thomas checked a box labeled “none” for his wife’s income during that period. He had done the same in 2008 and 2009 when she worked for conservative Hillsdale College.

Thomas acknowledged the error when he amended those filings in 2011. He wrote that the information had been “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

In some years before those omissions, however, Thomas had correctly reported his wife’s employment.

Thomas failed to report the sale of the three Georgia properties to Crow in 2014, and he also continued to report that he owned a share of those properties as late as 2015, his disclosure forms show. In addition, beginning in 2010, his disclosures described the properties as being located in Liberty County, Ga., even though they were actually located in Chatham County.

Thomas also did not report reimbursement for transportation, meals and lodging while teaching at the universities of Kansas and Georgia in 2018. After the omission was flagged by the nonprofit Fix the Court, Thomas amended his filing for that year. He also amended his 2017 filing, on which he had left off similar reimbursements while teaching at Creighton Law School, his wife’s alma mater.

Yeah they should probably just hang him….

And the hit pieces keep a comin'...

Lefty is never happy. First, they say he's a bad man because he didn't report stuff, but now he's a bad man because he did report stuff. I'll wait and see until somebody actually gets to the truth of the matter. But really I don't give a chit anyway.

All I want to know...is whether he is adhering to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic? After all, there are a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution to deal with.
Of course, cutting through all the BS, the end game of LEFTY is just to get him booted out of the SCOTUS by whatever means necessary so they can replace him with a hard-line LEFTY judge that would appeal to the extended Biden Crime Family all the way down to AOC.

Ya, they would likely be OK with hanging him, standing him in front of a firing squad or feeding him to the guillotine if they could get away with it Those are traditional LEFTY methods to deal with political opponents.

I can't stomach either NYT or Wapo. I would use it for bird cage poop or starting fires. But that would require I spend my money on it, sooooo... just, no.

This one says what you would want it to:
The Truth About Clarence Thomas’s Disclosures

He reported carefully on his inherited real estate. ProPublica’s reporting was slipshod and incurious.



WSJ
Clarence Thomas lost his beloved maternal grandparents barely a month apart in the spring of 1983. Myers Anderson, whom his grandson knew as “Daddy,” died of a stroke on March 30. Christine Anderson, known as “Aunt Tina,” suffered a stroke as well and died on May 1. “Perhaps, I thought, she’d lost the will to live,” Justice Thomas writes in his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.”

The Andersons, who were 75 and 70 respectively, are buried at Palmyra Baptist Church in Liberty County, Ga. When they died, Mr. Thomas was 34 and chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Losing Aunt Tina a month after Daddy was more painful than I could ever have imagined,” he writes. “How could I have let myself grow away from her, or from the man who . . . was the only real father I’d ever had?”

Mr. Thomas inherited a one-third interest in a few modest houses Myers Anderson owned. Forty years later, ProPublica has taken a different kind of interest in those properties. ProPublica describes itself as “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force.” It promises “deep-dive reporting” dedicated to “exposing corruption, informing the public about complex issues, and using the power of investigative journalism to spur reform.”

Give ProPublica credit for admitting its journalism has an agenda. So does mine, as the word “opinion” atop this page should make clear. But ProPublica’s acknowledgment that it’s in the opinion business doesn’t excuse it from the obligation to report facts accurately, carefully and thoroughly.

ProPublica has at least three reporters working the Clarence Thomas beat—Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski. Their story, published last Thursday, is titled “Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.” The troika write that the lack of disclosure “appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.” That statement is equivocal because it’s a legal theory based on incomplete facts. Justice Thomas didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions or to mine.

Some facts are known and undisputed. Mr. Crow, a Dallas developer and friend of the justice, confirmed in a written statement to ProPublica that Savannah Historic Development LLC, a company he established, bought “the childhood home of Justice Thomas,” which Mr. Crow plans to convert into a museum “telling the story of our nation’s second black Supreme Court Justice.” Public documents show that the company paid Anderson’s heirs a total of $133,363 for the Savannah house and two adjacent empty lots. According to ProPublica, Justice Thomas’s mother, 94-year-old Leola Williams, lived in the house at least until 2020 and possibly still does.

Assuming Justice Thomas received one-third of the sale price (or any amount more than $1,000), the text of the federal financial-disclosure statute would require him to have reported the transaction in Part VII (“Investments and Trusts”) of his annual AO-10 form for 2014. He didn’t do so and may need to file an amended form.

But my review of Justice Thomas’s disclosures and other documents convinces me that any failure to disclose was an honest mistake. On all other matters involving his scanty real-estate inheritance, he followed the Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, prepared by the Committee on Financial Disclosures of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Those instructions don’t make clear the statutory obligation to disclose the 2014 transaction.

Further, the ProPublica troika made a sloppy reporting error, the effect of which is to cast Justice Thomas’s disclosures in a falsely unfavorable light—to make them look shambolic or perhaps even dishonest when in fact they followed the filing instructions without fail.

The reporters’ error involves a confusion about what Justice Thomas did disclose. “By the early 2000s,” ProPublica reports, “he had stopped listing specific addresses of property he owned in his disclosures. But he continued to report holding a one-third interest in what he described as ‘rental property at ## 1, 2, & 3’ in Savannah.” It’s worth noting—ProPublica doesn’t—that the filing instructions (on page 32) prescribe disclosing rental properties in precisely this manner.

The story continues: “Two of the houses were torn down around 2010, according to property records and a footnote in Thomas’ annual disclosure archived by Free Law Project.” That footnote in Justice Thomas’s 2010 disclosure states in full: “Part VII, Line 2 - Two of the Georgia rental properties have been torn down. The only remaining property is an old house in Liberty County.”

Liberty County is where our journey began, but the ProPublica troika somehow missed it on the map. Their story leads the reader to think that the “remaining property” was the Savannah house where Justice Thomas’s mother lived. A Friday letter from the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington—co-signed by Virginia Canter, the first of ProPublica’s “four ethics experts”—expressly says so and accuses Justice Thomas of deceptively disclosing (rather than failing to disclose) the property’s disposition.

The footnote makes clear that this is wrong. There’s a fourth property. Justice Thomas’s 2009 disclosure listed three rental properties in “Sav., GA.” Beginning in 2010, he listed only one, in “Liberty Cty, GA.” Savannah is in Chatham County, not Liberty. But Liberty County is in the Savannah area, roughly a 45-minute drive from the city. For someone living hundreds of miles away, it would have been reasonable to describe the three rental properties collectively as being “in Savannah.”

That implies that Justice Thomas never disclosed his interest in the Savannah house where his mother lived. But he didn’t need to. “Information pertaining to a personal residence is exempted from reporting, unless the property generates rental income,” the filing instructions say on page 33. Nor was there any requirement to disclose the ownership of the other two Savannah properties after the houses were demolished. Who wants to rent an empty lot in Savannah?

When an asset isn’t sold but stops being reportable—in this case because it is no longer capable of generating rental income—page 50 of the filing instructions directs the filer to “insert ‘(Y)’ after the asset description in Column A and leave Columns 😎 blank, or include an explanatory note in Part VIII.” Justice Thomas did exactly that for the Savannah rental properties in 2010, and for the Liberty County property in 2015. The latter footnote reads simply: “Line 1: The asset listed on line 1 does not receive any rental income for this property.” This is the disclosure Ms. Canter and her co-signers mistake for a deception.

When my mother died in 2019, I inherited a one-third interest in her house, which I sold to my brother. I understand the statute to mean that if I had been a federal judge, I would be obligated to disclose that transaction. But if I hadn’t been made aware of the statute, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to think of my inheritance as an “investment,” and I searched the filing instructions in vain for language that makes plain a judge’s duty to disclose this sort of transaction.

In Justice Thomas’s circumstances, moreover, the instructions seem to say not to report the sale of the former rental properties. The above-quoted “insert ‘(Y)’ ” language on page 50 is followed immediately by this sentence: “In subsequent years, this asset should be deleted from Part VII.”

One may be tempted to think that of all people a judge should know what the law says. But that’s a nonsensical standard. A judge’s job isn’t to memorize statute books; it’s to discern laws’ meaning and their application to the facts in cases that litigants bring before him. Inasmuch as the law applies to the judge’s personal affairs and interests, he’s in the same boat with the rest of us—often dependent on lawyers or other specialists, such as the Committee on Financial Disclosures of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to make sense of his duties and rights.

The job of a journalist is similar in some ways to that of a judge. Both involve asking questions, testing arguments, and judiciously ascertaining facts and their significance. ProPublica failed to consider some obvious questions: Where is Liberty County? What is Justice Thomas’s connection to the place? If the remaining rental property was the house Mr. Crow’s company bought, what was it doing on Justice Thomas’s AO-10 for 2015, the year after the sale closed?

Journalists don’t memorize books either. I read “My Grandfather’s Son” when it came out in 2007, but as I researched this article I had to return to it and refresh my memory. “Daddy’s people worked on a three-thousand-acre rice plantation in Liberty County,” Justice Thomas writes, “and after their manumission they stayed nearby. The maternal side of my mother’s family also came from Liberty County, and probably worked on the same plantation.”

Daddy grew up on a family plot known as “the farm,” which “had been passed down undivided from generation to generation, as was often customary with land owned by southern blacks. Any family member was entitled to live there.” The fields were fallow by Christmas 1957, when Clarence was 9 and Daddy decided to build a house there. He enlisted the help of Clarence and his brother, Myers Thomas, and “by springtime we’d finished building a simple four-room house,” writes Justice Thomas, who spent his summers there until he left for college in 1967.

When Aunt Tina died in May 1983, “no sooner did Myers and I go home to the farm after the funeral than some of our relatives started fighting over the contents of the house, declaring that Aunt Tina would have wanted them to have this item or that,” Justice Thomas recounts. “Part of me was disgusted by their greed, but I couldn’t bring myself to care. Death had already stolen the only things in the house that mattered to me.”

Justice Thomas disclosed all this in a book that’s available on Kindle for $13.99. If you’re a journalist whose job is to investigate him, you probably ought to read it—especially if you aspire to produce work “with moral force.”

I heard ProPublica has a LEFT O' CENTER bias with LEFT O' CENTER funding including Soro's Foundation to Promote Open Society.

"Herbert Sandler is the Founding Chairman of ProPublica. In addition to Sandler Foundation, which was formed in 1991 by Herbert Sandler and Marion Sandler and provided initial financial support ( $30 million for the first three years), ProPublica has also received funding from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, The Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society among others."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/ 

Two appeals court judges recently weighed in on reporting around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and that he and his wife were gifted with trips and vacations from a billionaire friend for decades.

Judge Thomas Hardiman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the notion of a “scandal” surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Last week, left-wing outlet ProPublica published an article in which “experts,” some unnamed, argue Justice Thomas violated disclosure obligations by neglecting to report luxury gifts he received from billionaire friend Harlan Crow.

“The thing that I thought was weird about the Justice Thomas thing is the ‘scandal,’ to use your word, there was no intimation at any time, ever, that his billionaire friend ever had any business before the Supreme Court. So, how’s he helping his friend? He’s not even in a position to help his friend because his friend had exactly zero cases in the Supreme Court,” Judge Hardiman said in response to a question asked by an undergraduate during this week’s event, according to the National Review.

He was making reference to a ProPublica article published earlier this month that cited several unnamed experts who claimed that Thomas violated disclosure obligations by not reporting luxury gifts he received from billionaire Harlan Crow, a friend of his. The move prompted some Democratic lawmakers—namely Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—to propose impeaching Thomas.

“You know, I decide cases involving lawyers in Pittsburgh. And I know these lawyers, some of them are former law partners of mine. I belong to organizations with them, I go to lunch with them. Should I not hear their cases? If you have such suspicion about our integrity, you could really end up in a situation where judges can’t even do their jobs because at some point you’re attached to everybody,” Hardiman continued.

“If someone wanted to make me look bad and I happened to rule in favor of a client in an immigration case that was argued by my former law clerk, oh, there would be a big exposé, ‘oh, Hardiman chose partiality to his law clerk,’” Hardiman then said.

The judge then gave an example: “I’ve had my former law clerks stand up in court and argue cases. And I don’t think they’ve ever won a case. And it’s not because they’re not brilliant lawyers. They are. But usually they’re doing pro bono immigration cases, and sadly, for the immigrants, those cases can be very difficult to win.”

Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said that there is a difference between “an actual instance of corruption” and “the mere perception” during remarks he made during the event. “I think the appearance issue is absolutely important” as “the judiciary basically rests on its credibility,” he said, according to the National Review.
Judge Thomas Hardiman, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is seen in Washington, on Nov. 17, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

“The judiciary, like any human institution, isn’t perfect, because none of us are perfect,” Ho added.

Earlier in the month, a report published by nonprofit news organization ProPublica, which receives some funding from billionaire financier George Soros, said that Thomas had accepted luxury trips almost every year over the past 20 years or so without disclosing them.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/us-appeals-court-judge-rejects-propublica-story-justice-clarence-thomas 

What have we learned in respect to "unnamed sources"?

I heard the Stasi used to use evidence from "unnamed sources" to round up political enemies of the regime and dispose of them. 💀

It is interesting that the public comments made by those judges likely violate judicial cannons. Their duty was to say NOTHING about any matter not before them, and then to only speak from the bench if the matter is before them.

Were those judges black? Maybe the democrats can shackle them too!

They sound pretty uppity…..if the shackles fit.

I also wonder why some are limiting the issue of buying influence of a judge to only matter if the buyer has a case before that judge...as the judge above cited.

Isn't it equally alarming, maybe even more alarming, to be able to pay for having some sway in issues affecting all other citizens...such as birth control laws, school prayer, labor issues and on and on? Supreme Court issues as opposed to small claims and the like.

Not so long ago there was stuff with Alito leaking to the Hobby Lobby people claimed by that pastor Schenk (sp?) who admitted that he pushed for just such coziness for decades. Doubtful that any of Schenk's followers had personal court business but certainly had public policy in mind.

Thomas's billionaire pal has been spending on issues for a long time. Ginny and Heritage? Nothing to see here either?

...smoke/fire? I've heard that used here often over the years.

I might be wrong but have long thought that whether legal or not, whether technically legal to take, Judges should avoid anything that might have the look of impropriety...if that's the correct word.

regardless of the skin color of the judge in question.

Thomas should claim the trips were reparations and stuff... 😟

Then ...he has a lot more trips to go on...

To reach $5 million

what took ya so long?


HA!

HA

HA

HA!!

If he did claim this AOC would have to be cool with it right..?? 😕

Naw...Thomas is too tainted by right-wing extremism. Thomas would have to renounce all his evil ways and his friends and join the Democratic Socialists of America before AOC would accept him. You know...Workers of the World Unite!, Raise Your Fist!, Public Ownership of the Means of Production!, Green New Deal!, stuff like that.

The standard for recusal or taking every other judge in this country off the bench is "the mere appearance of impropriety." That's all. Just a "whiff" that something might appear to be wrong.