Public opinion on the Supreme Court judges' asset disclosure is divided. While there is appreciation for transparency, skepticism persists regarding the motives behind disclosures. Concerns focus on potential political biases, inconsistent ethical standards, and the judiciary's accountability. Anxiety over the integrity and transparency of judicial proceedings is prevalent, with media and public perception potentially influencing narratives about judicial misconduct.

Supreme Court Justices

Media

Public


Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!

**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**


* Read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.

**To Readers and Commenters**


* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.

 Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Your best option is to deal with BC FMEP.

hererealandserious

[deleted]

The point of disclosure is to reveal potential conflicts. If disclosures weren’t made but later come to light the first and most important question is whether those new revelations can be ties to conflicts of interest. 

That is to say, did the “sugar daddy” have a pending case or an explicit financial interest that could have been before the court?

Justices as predictable as Thomas and Breyer are really bad candidates to try to influence. The idea is laughable actually.

AD3PDX

If Justice Thomas’s backers are so concerned that public disrepute of the judiciary will cause a “tragic” event to occur, they should be very supportive of mandatory ethics rules for the Justices.

Person_756335846

For the past couple weeks, the common refrain from many of those vilifying Justice Thomas has been “If this were a Democrat-appointed Justice, this subreddit would be up in arms.”  To which many (myself included) said “No, we wouldn’t, it wouldn’t matter who appointed the justice.”  

Now, it comes out that not only did several Democrat-appointed justices fail to disclose financial interests, some of them failed to do so for a decade (Justice Jackson) or more (Justice Breyer).  When confronted with the fact that we did *not* change our tune in the face of this information, the response by several others has been along the lines of “This subreddit will bend over backwards to accommodate its Conservative bias.”

No, this is what *consistency* looks like.  It doesn’t look like the crafting of some magical scale post-hoc to excuse justices that align with your politics.  It doesn’t look like conflating personal opinions of what *should* be disclosed with what is *required* explicitly to be disclosed.  Consistency is applying the same rationale to all parties.  At the very least, it demands that Justice Thomas be extended the same amendment opportunity given to Justices Breyer and Jackson for their decade-long failures to disclose.  

When the first thought in the mind of a reader is “If x party did this then these people would be outraged,” that’s not a rational, objective evaluation.  It’s an evaluation grounded in personal politics, and further, if the individuals in question do not become outraged, and the response is “They’ll justify anything,” that says more about the evaluation and biases of the readers who have those thoughts than of the individuals they contest with on these topics.

We should be evaluating this independent of politics.  It’s perfectly reasonable to want disclosure rules to be updated.  It’s not reasonable to seek to exempt certain justices and crucify others.

&gt; In an error-filled report last week, [...]

-

&gt; It has neither acknowledged the errors in its reporting nor claimed that there were any errors in mine.

I tried asking in the previous thread about this, but received no response: Can someone quote the parts of the ProPublica article that contain these "errors" that he's complaing so bitterly about? I still don't see them even after re-reading the piece.

HotlLava

Another puff piece from the wall street journal's editorial page willing to overlooking a federal judge receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed perks from a politically active and connected billionaire.

What precisely happened the concept of "appearance of impropriety?" Why is this behavior from a sitting SCOTUS jurist acceptable, but other federal judges, federal employees and service members would face immediate discipline for the same behavior?

Keep carrying water for Thomas. All we end up with is normalized corruption.

shoot_your_eye_out

Fascinating.  I’m not surprised, since people file amended reports on everything imaginable, because people are *human* and *forget* things or misunderstand things.  If anything, this just serves to show that a process for amending disclosures once a mistake has been realized is important, and that the very possibility that amended reports might need to be filed should entitle people to a level of grace and understanding that politics is very reluctant to grant.

The other thing this may demonstrate is a strong need for an internal validation mechanism for disclosures by the justices.

From James Taranto at the WSJ (hence the extended pull-quotes in case the paywall gets frisky):

&gt; ProPublica’s big scoop turned out to be a quarter-teaspoon. In an error-filled report last week, the opinionated news site got one point right: Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t disclose the 2014 sale of his one-third interest in three Savannah, Ga., properties to a company controlled by his friend Harlan Crow. He was legally required to do so. On these pages, in an [article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-truth-about-clarence-thomas-disclosures-propublica-georgia-harlan-crow-ethics-court-91cd21df?mod=article_inline) published online Sunday, I observed that he may have to amend his financial-disclosure form for that year...

&gt; How big a deal is it to amend a form after missing a disclosure? Consider these examples, which reader Darin Bartram dug up:

&gt; • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s [2012 disclosure](https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ruth-bader-ginsburg-disclosure.2012.pdf?mod=article_inline) amended her 2011 report, which “inadvertently omitted” the sale of shares in an exchange-traded fund that she had bought earlier the same year. “The Value Code should of [sic] been L and the Gain Code should of [sic] been A,” the amendment says.

&gt; • Ginsburg amended her [2017 disclosure](https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ruth-bader-ginsburg-disclosure.2017.pdf?mod=article_inline) to reflect that she had “inadvertently omitted” a gift of an opera costume worth $4,500.

&gt; • Justice Stephen Breyer reported in an [amended 2018 disclosure](https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/stephen-gerald-breyer-disclosure.2018.pdf?mod=article_inline) that he had “inadvertently omitted” two stock sales by his wife, one in 2006 and one in 2018.

&gt; • In February 2022, three days after President Biden nominated her to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson amended her [2020 disclosure](https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ketanji-brown-jackson-disclosure.2020_1.pdf?mod=article_inline) to note that in various years between 2011 and 2021 she had “inadvertently omitted” travel reimbursements for two speaking trips, a university teaching salary, four nonprofit board memberships, her husband’s consulting income and a 529 college savings plan. No senator mentioned these omissions at her confirmation hearings.

&gt; Apart from Ginsburg’s disappointing grammar, it’s hard to see a scandal here. Justice Thomas’s decision to amend his disclosure is so insignificant that ProPublica, which discovered and hyped the omission, hasn’t bothered to claim vindication or to report the amendment at all. Justin Elliott, a member of the site’s anti-Thomas troika, [tweeted](https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1647942601130094601) the CNN story but didn’t mention the amended disclosure. Instead he touted the revelation that “Harlan Crow is not charging Justice Thomas’ mother rent.”

&gt; ProPublica has responded to my article with silence. It has neither acknowledged the errors in its reporting nor claimed that there were any errors in mine. The attitude seems to be that they’re entitled to their own opinion and to their own facts. There has been almost no comment from other so-called mainstream journalists either, and the few criticisms I’ve seen have been insubstantial. An editor at a regional newspaper [tweeted](https://twitter.com/meganschrader/status/1648479262771642371): “.@jamestaranto’s conclusion is clear. Thomas ‘may need to file an amended form’ and ‘any failure to disclose was an honest mistake.’ Giving Thomas the benefit of the doubt is not uncovering ‘the truth,’ no matter how many column inches you spend attacking good journalists.”

&gt; I would never attack good journalists, if only for fear of harming an endangered species. My contention is that the ProPublica troika’s work is a travesty of journalism, and I am increasingly disinclined to credit them with practicing journalism at all. Instead, they function as political opposition researchers. They follow the facts only far enough to find a plausible complaint that Justice Thomas did something wrong, which they baselessly frame as evidence of corruption, then move on to the next accusation. (They were also less clear than I was in identifying his actual error, palming that opinion off on “four ethics experts.” They identified only two of those so-called experts, both of whom expressed prejudicial views about Thomas. One had a 14-page letter demanding an investigation—replete with factual errors—ready to go the day after the ProPublica piece ran.)....

&gt; Our tale so far may seem like a comedy of errors, and I’ll admit I laughed out loud more than once at the hypocrisy and incompetence I discovered as I reported this article. But a tragic ending is possible. Supreme Court justices are in danger of physical as well as political and journalistic attack. Since the May 2022 leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization*, protest mobs have gathered outside his and several colleagues’ homes, and the justices’ security regimen has become tighter and more intrusive.... I wish the opinion hadn’t been published until the end of June, but I can’t fault Politico. Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward got a genuine, highly newsworthy scoop. They took care to confirm it and to report it truthfully. Their tone was measured; they meant to inform, not inflame. By contrast, the work of ProPublica and today’s Washington Post is reckless with the facts, and a reasonable person could conclude it is intended to stir up animus against Justice Thomas and other disfavored public officials.

&gt; The Committee on Financial Disclosures of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts takes a keen interest in the justices’ safety and privacy. It provides federal judges with a two-page document titled [“Security Matters”](https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/security_matters_2023.pdf?mod=article_inline) that reminds them their financial-disclosure report is a public document and instructs them to “avoid over-reporting.”

&gt; One of its instructions: “For rental properties, provide only the city (or county) and state in which the property is located. Do not use street addresses, lot numbers, or survey descriptions. You may identify multiple properties as ‘Rental Property #1, Cincinnati, Ohio,’ ‘Rental Property #2, Cincinnati, Ohio.’ ” That’s precisely what Justice Thomas did when he had an ownership interest in rental properties—and the ProPublica troika insinuated he was trying to cover something up.

&gt; The committee is also concerned to protect judges’ families: “Do not identify relatives by name or designation such as ‘spouse,’ ‘brother,’ or ‘mother-in-law.’ ”

&gt; CNN’s Monday report includes the home address of Justice Thomas’s mother. Sometimes journalists should avoid overreporting, too. As for bad reporting, we should avoid it like the plague it has become.

Master-Thief

They could. I know one judge who very well might.

It seems some may use their attorneys on staff to provide summaries of some documents.


I have seen some reading filings on the bench as lawyers reference them in court. I would assume that in these cases, Judge is reading the motions and mainly reviewing the documents (or sections of documents) specifically refenced in the motion before the court

Many attorneys will upload documents that are never referenced in court.  If the attorney attaches a 120 page contract that is tangential to the main arguments in the case, but the lawyers never make any reference to the argument, why would the judge spend any time it?

In a divorce case, an attorney may upload 20 rental agreements that are related to assets and/or income of one of the parties.  I would be surprised if Judge spent any time on these unless there was a related pending motion or the attorneys had some salient disagreement about relevant facts related to these documents.

Fair-Literature8300

I clerked in a federal district court and a state supreme court. Once trust was established, my judges trusted me to review everything and they focused on the pleadings/briefs and the primary documents cited therein. I wrote bench memos summarizing the record and my legal research and called out any record documents I thought warranted closer attention. Some judges may do it differently, but I never met a judge who wouldn't at least read all the pleadings/briefs.

chillannyc2

Clerked at federal district and federal court of appeals. 

No. 

Sometimes a clerk will be asked to read all the underlying documents. But usually, I was asked to read the cited portions of the materials and skim the remainder for key facts if something looked off or was missing. 

Judges typically reviewed the briefs, key caselaw, and the key parts of important documents at most. At the end of the day, it's the responsibility of the attorneys to bring the most important documents to the judge's attention. 

Some state court judges didn't even bother with reading the briefs.

sum1won

I know a judge who read all the documents.  But their clerks have the time to do a closer read.  Between the judge and their clerks, you can assume someone in chambers has read every document.  I think great briefs are appealing both in isolation _and_ in light of all the documents in the case.  It’s hard to do that.

Most-Bowl

I've personally worked with judges. They usually go into a court event only having read, if at all, what is relevant for the event itself. Say, it's a post-judgment motion for contempt of a court's order. They will only scan the motion and look at what orders were violated and decide on that. They are not going to open up the entire case and review it from the start. Neither are they going to start looking at old exhibits or the case history. Most judges are busy so don't be suprised if they only read whatever u submitted 5-15 minutes before the event. I can say with 100% certainty that there are judges who would read the material on the spot and decide in front of you. If you have a ton of data, excel sheets, or wtv, they will likely not read thst until the event itself so they can have u interpret it for them. They are not going to spend the night before the event reviewing the entire case file. The only exception I can think of is if its a full-blown trial and the issues are really difficult. Judges are really smart and can piece together what's happening on the spot.

FirstAd7199

No. Your introduction should be strong as hell because they sure as hell don't want to read the rest of the brief. I am sure some judges do in some slower/smaller courts, but I think that is the exception.

redreign421

I’m sure it depends on what sort of Judge, for example the amount of time a district judge has to read all of it is less than an appellate judge

Nervous_Platypus4709

You can’t assume one way or the other, but it seems like most of the judges in my area will read any dispositive motion or brief in its entirety, the intro and conclusion to any substantive motion that isn’t dispositive, and rubber stamp any agreed upon scheduling motion.  And God help the attorney who doesn’t agree to a routine continuance unless it’s the third time or higher.

shermanstorch

It depends on the judge, the court, and the documents, but in writing motions, briefs, and other things for a judge to read, I assume they are overworked and will read the bare minimum. Good fiction might be flowery and indirect, but people want to read fiction. Good legal writing is as short and tight and simple as possible.

RankinPDX

I clerked for a Circuit Judge in Michigan. I read every word and gave him a summary.

golfergirl72

EastCoastGrind

State court, likely not. Federal court, at the very least a clerk is doing so.

Shortalamuhl

owlz725

Groovedaddy

repmack

I think it depends on if it is a common issue like a discovery dispute or something complex that they are less familiar with.

bittinho

I just got out of court. The judge hadn’t read the documents yet (small “handshake” town). OC actually said to the judge, “if you want just read sections x and z. Section Y is pretty weak.”

RighteousTablespoon

 A plurality of them do. Federal judges are more likely than state judges to have at least skimmed your filings.

ecfritz

bpagan38

I think it depends. One of my favorite trial judges has a freakish ability to recall details in pleadings and documents and I kind of love her for it. Makes me always show up very prepared, since I know she knows everything in the file.

MizLucinda

I’d like to know how many of them have questionable income?  Or are all their votes buyable?

BUDDHAKHAN

Who's wealth has increased the most, since joining the court?

MethLab

What was the last salary from each justice before joining the Supreme Court?

drs012345

Who exactly paid off Kavanaugh’s debts before his confirmation hearings?

intronert

Why is this newsworthy? They are some of the most successful, powerful, and important people in the US and these look like numbers for mid-level tech managers. Their wealth would probably be 10X if they had gone into other law fields.

TooBusyToSucceed

How have you seen this reporting be received? 

I get the impression there is a growing contingent of voters that think the SC justices are bribed or “bought.” 

Do you think your reporting has dissuaded this group? Or have you seen it be used to bolster or inform their conviction? 

Wick_345

- How do these figures compare to previous courts? 

- Has  the delta between the wealthiest and the least wealthy -- $23 million according  to your figures -- changed over time?

MurkyPerspective767

Could you post links that are not paywalled?

psnf

Any plans on doing legislators?  Maybe correlating specific gains with stock purchases/sales related to legislation they're actively passing?

JimLeahe

Do you have the figures excluding primary residence?

essenceofreddit

Isn't this a conflict of interest for them to be this wealthy &amp; where did they get the money to begin with?

cpnpunisher

Is it possible for them to receive money without anyone being able to track where it came from?

Thank you for your service!

AdSmall1198

ZolotoG0ld

Comedian John Oliver has offered Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million per year and a Winnebago in exchange for Thomas' resignation from the Supreme Court. Assuming this is a legitimate offer, how likely do you think it is that Justice Thomas would give it serious consideration?

Fuzzy-Hurry-6908

What can actually be done about this problem? Is there really any way to solve this issue in our current political climate?

joehizzle

When are you guys gonna stop putting fraudsters and criminals on your covers? I'm gonna be honest, if I wanna know what the next tech scam is, I check your covers.

JamsJars

So how afraid are you of committing suicide by by shotting yourself twice in the back of the head? 

Also, can you do the same for congress people?

PanzerBiscuit

My only question would be what made you think people would be interested beyond the response you got from the story?

ItsTheDevil888666

No holds barred: which justice wins in a fight?

ASUMicroGrad

Forbes, Fortune, NYT and WSJ blew investigating Trump's finances, which is why we're where we are today. Why should anyone trust your reporting now?

Just-Examination-136

What ideological angle did you plan to take before writing this?

eigr

Really? Nobody cares? Do you know that we are all powerless sheep who cannot and will not make a difference?

PCbabies_get_hitHard

Are you crossing a picket line right now?

Satanic_Doge

Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient. 

OP, if you need any help, please message the mods [here](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fiama&amp;subject=&amp;message=).

Thank you!

---
   

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmA) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Is there any institution in America that has not been totally corrupted by money?

tolomea

Why do people care when mega corporations are pillaging the country? 

5mill seems a bit low for someone that is meant to be at the top of thier field too. There are local CEOS in this small town worth more lol

LoneyGamer2023

My understanding - and I could be wrong - is that if she doesn't submit those disclosures within a certain amount of time she can be found in contempt. 

Is your lawyer not being helpful on the issue? I'm just some dummy on the internet.

Cyclist007

NAL, but I had a very similar situation to yours that was finally settled a couple of years ago. Was earning money, and refusing to submit income documentation. 

Two things ended up being important:

1. Keep the court dates coming. At a certain point, you can probably represent yourself. Once the proper paperwork is filed, it's just showing up and explaining your argument. She is legally required to provide you with her financial information for the purposes of child support. She can delay, but she can't avoid it.

2. Basically I came up with a number that I thought represented her income, and went after her for a retroactive adjustment. I never got the extra money I paid back, but it did eventually force her to a settlement and I ended up with a fair monthly amount

jeeeaar

I hope you saved all of the evidence you found online. That could be just as useful to you

pistachios9

Guidelines for family court and process vary depending on your province. Where are you?

Wild_Flamingo_3955

This might not be helpful to your overall court case but you can make life interesting for her by filing to the CRA that she is not reporting an accurate income and provide all your evidences to support their investigation. This report is anonymous by the way!

[https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/suspected-tax-cheating-in-canada-how-report.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/suspected-tax-cheating-in-canada-how-report.html)

This happened between my parents and dragged out for nearly 4 years. Separated before amicably divorcing. She hid her finances and worked under the table for cash, had good credit and some disability pay. She wanted full custody but was not awarded it, but she got a lot because she was a stay-at-home mom with "no income". Made my dad second-guess himself and go crazy... it was horrible to watch. 

She never properly disclosed her income either, but somehow afforded rent, then a home and car purchase. 

NAL but my dad ended up doing something that fully severed them from each other. I think he paid some large amount to basically make her go away. He had to do custody separately, but was awarded 50/50. It was really messy and awful, and when he passed away, there were still some accounts, bills, and property in both their names. Courts upheld their divorce though and I was estate trustee and fought pretty hard to keep his wishes written in his will upheld. At times, it felt like no one was listening. I went through a few family and estate lawyers before finding ones who were adept at writing letters to my mother telling her to prove her shit or get out of here with her demands. 

Bragging online is huge. A lot of the court taking our side and helping my dad was because my mum literally showed photos of her on vacations abroad, buying a house, and writing in e-mails that "their marriage is over but he still needs to support me" and how she would keep my youngest brother at home for as long as she could.... getting emotional just writing this.. Good luck, OP!

turkeypooo

Take all info you can of her spending more money than she claims to be making and ask the judge to impute her income at a level that she could afford all those things. And unless she has a doctors letter stating she is incapable of working she should be force to pay at her highest income she earned in the time she was with you or since the children were born. The judge will usually go extra high if they refuse to give financials. They do this to men all the time. Judge imputed my income higher than it was because I quite and started my own business which I made less with as a new business. So I’ll pay higher while I make less but then as my company grows again I’ll have to pay more. So women are never force to sacrifice for future income the way men do.

taciko

NAL. I had a similar issue before. You can compel people to disclose through court. If they don’t, then they get arrested. You need a judge to sign off on it I think.

auburnwind

Set a court date. Some people won’t do anything until you prove you’re ready to go to court. You can always represent yourself.

discovery999

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant move towards transparency by publicly disclosing the assets of its judges...

Supreme Court Judges' Asset Disclosure

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want