Protect Our Elections Calls on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to Step Down in Light of His Admission That He Falsified Twenty Years of Financial Disclosure Forms

/PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, the watchdog group ProtectOurElections.org asked the U.S. Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his AO 10 Financial Disclosure forms every year since 2003 by falsely swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no non-investment income. http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_DOJ_Letter.pdf Within six hours of the group's request, Justice Thomas announced that he had now amended not seven but 20 years of financial disclosure forms to include his wife's income. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/justice-clarence-thomas-amends-financial-disclosure-reports-virginia/story?id=12750650 Justice Thomas said that he "misunderstood" the filing instructions which asked him to check whether his wife had any non-investment income, and had checked "none."

Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year, according to the foundation's IRS Form 990s. She then went to work for Liberty Central in a paid position according to CEO Sarah Field. Last Friday, Common Cause revealed Thomas's false statements in a letter to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Coverage by the Los Angeles Times failed to note the criminal nature of the matter. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story

Each of the AO 10 Financial Disclosure forms signed by Justice Thomas states in Section IX that it is certified under oath as follows:

"I certify that all information given above ( including information pertaining to my spouse and minor or dependent children, if any) is accurate, true, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that any information not reported was withheld because it met applicable statutory provisions permitting non-disclosure." (Emphasis added.)

Under the signature box in bold capital letters is the following:

NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFIES OR FAILS TO FILE THIS REPORT MAY BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS (5 U.S.C. app section 104)

According to the Department of Justice Handbook on Prosecutions, persons with expertise in law are presumed to act "knowingly and willfully," and a defendant's signature on a document can help establish willfulness and knowledge. See United States v. Tucker, 133 F.3d 1208, 1218 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that signature proved knowledge of contents of return); United States v. Mohney, 949 F.2d 1397, 1407 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that signature is prima facie evidence that the signer knows the contents of the return); United States v. Drape, 668 F.2d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 1982) (finding that defendant's signature is sufficient to establish knowledge once it has been shown that the return was false).

If charged, Justice Thomas could face up to one year in prison and a criminal fine for each false statement charge, and a civil fine of up to $50,000 under 5 U.S.C. appendix section 104.

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

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

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

-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP

Yoest Applauds Senator Sessions in Call for Postponement

/Standard Newswire/ -- "Yesterday, we asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to postpone the Kagan
confirmation hearings if the Clinton Presidential Library fails to deliver important documents from Ms. Kagan's tenure in the Clinton Administration with enough lead time to allow Senators to thoroughly examine them. In a Senate floor speech yesterday, Senator Jeff Sessions said that he would have no choice but to ask for a delay if the documents are not delivered in a timely fashion. I applaud Senator Sessions for his leadership. The American people and their elected representatives need
to have all of the facts available to them when weighing this critical, lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court." -- Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public- interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.

AUL's legal team has been involved in every pro-life case before the U.S. Supreme Court including the
successful defense of the Hyde Amendment. AUL also publishes Defending Life, the most comprehensive state- by-state legal guide of its kind, which is distributed annually to legislators across the nation.

Recently, Americans United for Life detailed the facts on taxpayer-funding of abortion during the debate over federal health care legislation, provided legal assistance to states working to opt out of abortion provisions created by federal health care law, and has played a major role in educating policymakers on the record of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter:  @GAFrontPage

Libertarians say Kagan is bad, but bigger problem exists

Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement today:

"Elena Kagan is another bad pick for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, it is likely that she will vote on cases with the intent of advancing political policy goals.

"Kagan will probably vote to advance liberal policy goals, just as some other justices vote to advance conservative policy goals. That is not the place of justices, who should be applying the Constitution, not trying to rewrite it to make society work better according to their views.

"However, the bitter battles over Supreme Court justices expose a more serious problem in our federal government: the legislative and executive branches simply refuse to take the Constitution seriously.

"Once upon a time, Congress felt it had a duty to legislate in accordance with the Constitution. Likewise, past presidents believed that they should veto laws that were not clearly constitutional. But in more recent years, both branches have thrown this crucial duty away. Now their attitude seems to be, 'We can pass anything we want to, and let the Supreme Court deal with it if they don't like it.' That was absolutely not what the American Founders had in mind.

"We shouldn't have to worry so much about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be the case that a single justice can make all of American society lurch from one direction to another. They shouldn't have that much power.

"Republicans who want to throw stones at Kagan, ought to ask themselves why they supported the Bush Administration's blatantly unconstitutional Patriot Act, or why they supported huge expansions of the blatantly unconstitutional Medicare program. When they were in power, they showed absolutely no respect for the Constitution.

"I wish that President Obama had picked a nominee with more regard for the original intent of the Constitution. But even more than that, I wish that he and the members of Congress would stop shirking their responsibility to apply the Constitution themselves."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter:  @GAFrontPage

Libertarians: Sotomayor confirmation a defeat for individual, property, gun rights

Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson released the following statement Thursday, after the Senate’s 68-31 vote to confirm Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring Justice David Souter:

“Today’s confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a significant defeat for individual, property and gun rights. The Libertarian Party was the first political party to announce its opposition to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, after reviewing her history on the bench.

“Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, overturned by the Supreme Court, violates the Libertarian belief in equality under the law. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Maloney v New York and United States v Sanchez-Villar violated basic rights protected under the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in Didden v. Village of Port Chester violated personal property rights and affirmed the power of government to confiscate property for purposes beyond public use. Judge Sotomayor also has a long and troubling history of ruling on cases based on personal feelings and prejudices, rather than the letter of the law.

“Libertarians are joined by millions of Americans in their beliefs in equality under the law and the protection of individual, property and gun rights. Libertarians hope President Obama will work harder in the future to appoint justices who uphold our constitutionally-protected rights, not someone else’s narrow political agenda.”

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Libertarians warn Judiciary vote may have consequences

America’s third largest party Wednesday reminded members of the Senate Judiciary Committee their vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a vote against constitutionally-guaranteed gun rights and those who vote to confirm in the full Senate next week can expect to be held accountable at the polls.

Libertarians announced their opposition to the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation early, after reviewing her troubling record on individual, property and gun rights. The Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send the nomination to the full Senate. South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham joined the committee’s 12 Democrats.

“A judge’s record is the best indicator of what they will do on the Court, and Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of opposition to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Libertarians, and all of America’s 90 million gun owners, will remember how you voted,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “Your vote on Judge Sotomayor may come back to haunt you one November.”

“And if you think you can’t lose your seat over the gun issue, I suggest you speak with Harris Wofford,” said Ferguson, referring to the incumbent Democratic Pennsylvania senator who lost his seat to Republican Rick Santorum in 1994 by a 49 to 47 percent margin, after supporting the Clinton gun ban. “If I’m a senator who could lose if a small percentage of my pro-gun base votes for another candidate, I’d be worried.”

“History shows, whether it’s a grassroots conservative activist, a blue-collar union member or a libertarian, the base of every party is made up of people who value their gun rights and will not support someone who votes against their constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms,” said Ferguson. “The Libertarian Party is the only party in America that never compromises on gun rights, and one way or another we will hold those voting to confirm accountable on Election Day.”

In the New York v Maloney case earlier this year, Sotomayor affirmed a lower court ruling that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to the states.

Sotomayor also ruled against gun rights in a 2004 case, United States
v Sanchez-Villar, citing as precedent the statement “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

The Supreme Court will likely rule next year on the NRA v Chicago case, a case critical to restoring the individual right to keep and bear arms.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Judicial Watch Statement on the Ricci Reversal

/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the reversal of a decision that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge:

The Ricci decision today is further confirmation that Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Judge Sotomayor helped uphold an action that was in violation of our nation's anti-discrimination laws. The question for the United States Senate is whether to confirm someone who thinks it is appropriate to discriminate based on race simply to protect oneself from a lawsuit. Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that New Haven firefighters have "a right to demand...evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them." Judge Sotomayor did not apply our nation's anti-discrimination laws in an evenhanded way and her confirmation should be
rejected.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Libertarians urge Supreme Court to overturn anti-gun Illinois ordinances

America’s third largest party Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to hear an appeal challenging handgun bans in Chicago and the Illinois village of Oak Park, and to rule such gun bans violate the Second Amendment. A U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday that it could not hear challenges to the anti-gun ordinances filed by both the National Rifle Association and attorney Alan Gura after the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that a handgun ban in the District of Columbia was unconstitutional.

In a 3-0 decision, the panel ruled it was bound by past rulings claiming the Second Amendment does not necessarily apply to states, and only the Supreme Court could overturn the handgun bans. That precedent has since been put into question by its 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia ruling handgun bans were unconstitutional in that federal district. Gura was lead attorney in the Heller case and filed a similar suit in Illinois.

“The court simply ruled it cannot overturn precedent, not that gun control is a mythical right held by government as anti-gun radicals now claim. Libertarians urge the Supreme Court to hear this case and uphold the clear language of the Second Amendment by overturning gun bans in states and municipalities as it did in the District of Columbia,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.

The panel heard a combined appeal from the NRA and Gura challenging a Dec. 4, 2008 decision by the Seventh Circuit to throw out their three lawsuits against the cities of Chicago and Oak Park challenging the constitutionality of their anti-gun ordinances. The three suits, McDonald v. City of Chicago, National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago and National Rifle Association v. Village of Oak Park were consolidated by the court for the appeal.

“The intent of the Second Amendment is clear. Allowing citizens to keep and bear arms is critical to the defense of an entire nation, and therefore cannot be infringed. We urge the Supreme Court to make the Second Amendment one of those constitutional guarantees of freedom that comes without asterisks or disclaimers,” said Ferguson.

Ferguson also urged members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to have Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor clarify her position on gun rights, as she will likely hear the Illinois case should she be confirmed.

“Considering the fact Sonia Sotomayor will likely hear this case should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court, senators have an obligation to ask her if she agrees with the plain text of the Second Amendment that it confers individual rights, and whether she believes states are bound by it,” said Ferguson.

“I would hope they would refuse to confirm a judge who thinks the Second Amendment somehow gives government rights, or that states are free to ignore it,” said Ferguson. “The Libertarian Party has already announced its opposition to Sotomayor and her history of ruling against individual and property rights in favor of her personal agenda of identity politics and more powerful government.”

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Libertarians blast Sotomayor pick

America’s third largest party Tuesday criticized President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, citing past rulings that public employers should discriminate in hiring based on race.

“While Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair and impartial hearing, Supreme Court justices should be nominated for their thorough knowledge of and adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chairman.

“By nominating Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama has made it clear he prefers an activist for his personal causes over a rational interpreter of law,” said Redpath.

According to Cato Institute Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon, Sotomayor is “the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.”

Sotomayor is best known for the Ricci v. DeStafano case, in which the New Haven, Conn. fire department decided it didn’t like the results of an officers promotion exam in which whites and Hispanic firefighters outperformed black firefighters. The city threw out the results of the exam, denying several firefighters promotions solely because of their race. The firefighters sued the city, claiming racial discrimination under Title VVI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundations filed briefs on behalf of the firefighters, citing the absurdity of allowing public employers to throw out the results of valid, race-neutral exams that produce racial disparity because the racial disparity produced wasn’t politically correct. The firefighters and the libertarian foundations filing briefs argued that public employment practices should be color-blind.

Sotomayor disagreed, ruling the city has a right to discriminate against white and Hispanic public employees to construct a politically correct racial mix in hiring, even if it goes against the results of a racially-neutral competency exam.

The case is now before the Supreme Court. Sotomayor has had her rulings thrown out by the court a troubling four times. In three of those cases, the Court ruled Sotomayor had incorrectly interpreted the law.

“It is troubling that Obama, who won the highest elected office in the world without racial preferences, would nominate someone who openly admits the government should racially discriminate against its own citizens to serve the needs of political correctness,” said Redpath.

“Libertarians believe that, while the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association allows private parties to hire whomever they please, government has no right to discriminate. Public employers should treat all citizens of all colors, races and ethnicities with equal respect and value and Sotomayor’s radical rulings are a jarring departure from that principle.”

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Instant Runoff Voting Case Goes to the Minnesota Supreme Court

/PRNewswire / -- The Minnesota Voters Alliance case against the City of Minneapolis to prevent implementation of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is headed for the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 13th. The Alliance filed an appeal of a lower court decision in January. The City filed for expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.

The voting rights affected by IRV and being fought over have national significance.

The initial ruling from Hennepin County District Court concerning the constitutionality of IRV was full of factual misconceptions and faulty legal arguments.

The court failed to grasp the concept embodied in State Supreme Court precedent that when a voter votes for the candidate of his choice, his vote must be counted as one, and it cannot be defeated or its effect lessened, except by the vote of another elector voting for one other candidate. IRV violates this fundamental principle.

Even though IRV fails to count all ballots equally and places voters in the position of not knowing whether their first choice vote will help or hurt their favorite candidate, the district somehow found that not to conflict with basic notions of constitutional principles.

IRV can force voters to either dilute the strength of their ballot by not ranking all the candidates, or to rank candidates they do not prefer at all. Thus, the voter must either violate his own equal protection rights, because other ballots would carry more weight, or violate his own association rights, by having to vote for a candidate he or she opposes.

We believe the Supreme Court will overturn the district's ruling and uphold the principle of one person, one vote!

From attorney, Erick Kaardal, "We hope all citizens, opposed and for IRV, pay close attention to the case. It is the most important case for our democracy in over 90 years."

The IRV case could easily end up in the U. S. Supreme Court because of the unique issues and arguments presented under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. This case could lead they way to protect the rights of all voters, especially those who do not want to freely give them up.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage