Scandal By the Numbers: Senators Demand Burris I Resign As Officials Investigate Burris II

burrisThis is why I hate sequels. As politicians step forward to call on Illinois Senator Roland Burris (D., IL) to resign, his son Roland Burris II is now under investigation after receiving a state job as a housing-agency lawyer under ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration — only weeks after being hit with a tax lien and foreclosure papers.

Illinois officials have agreed to investigate the selection of Burris II as senior counsel for the Illinois Housing Development Authority after the Internal Revenue Service slapped him with a $34,163 tax lien and only three weeks after a mortgage company filed a foreclosure lawsuit on his Chicago home.

According to press reports, Burris II has been hit repeatedly with federal tax liens. He satisfied two federal tax liens in 2005 and then was hit by another lien of $34,163 in July for unpaid taxes for 2004, 2005 and 2007. In the meantime, Burris II and his wife got the $372,000 mortgage on July 18, 2006, but have paid less than $3,000 with a balance due of $406,685, including interest and penalties.

The job pays $75,000-a-year and many are viewing the position with a high degree of skepticism. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote “The son of embattled Sen. Roland Burris is a federal tax deadbeat who landed a $75,000-a-year state job under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich five months ago.”

In the meantime, legislators have called for a perjury investigation against Burris I for alleging lying under oath on Jan. 8 when he failed to disclose contacts that he had with Gov. Rod Blagojevich or his advisers.

It is not clear how Burris is going to fit all of this on his resume-laden tombstone.

For the latest story, click here.

6 thoughts on “Scandal By the Numbers: Senators Demand Burris I Resign As Officials Investigate Burris II”

  1. Rontousi:

    “They all need jail time, and I get 10% of the take IRS gets, as the informant or whistle blower.”


    Your personal need for profiteering from being a snitch notwithstanding, the Government will still need to be able to prove that the taxpayers you cite intended to evade taxes, not merely misunderstood or were improperly advised about the hyper-complex tax codes applicable here. Tell me can you distinguish between a true domestic employee and an independent contractor for purposes of federal withholding? (hint: the element of control is important, and the test is not found in the Tax Code) And by the way, “mistakes” do not constitute tax evasion since by definition the actor lacks mens rea. Thus under the Tax Code’s criminal provision found at 26 U.S.C. § 7201 the defendant must be shown to have a specific intent to violate an actually known legal duty. You may feel that a former Senator would know better, but the fact remains you get to stand on the sideline grousing while the lawyers who are expert at prosecuting these offenses do the heavy lifting. Apparently, they feel there is insufficient evidence to pursue the cases,and thus your frustration. Sorry to interrupt your rant against the Administration (I note you failed to mention any Republican fiddlers), but we are still a nation of laws, and emotional reactions of the high-born Republican “nobility,” still won’t consign political opponents to the Château d’If just yet (think Dumas here, not Dumb Ass).

  2. Here’s my bitch! (bitches)

    Sec Treasury in charge of IRS after evading taxes on Nanny wages and other things.

    Tom Daschle quits nomination process after tax “mistakes” for three yrs running? Is that not TAX EVASION????

    Ron Kirk to be trade rep also pays no taxes on Fees and honorarium, but says he now will file amended returns for past three years? Only because he got caught? What money stealing did he do as Dallas Mayor?

    Corporate titans go to jail for tax evasion. What about politicos??? WHY ARE THEY NO PROSECUTED FOR TAX EVASION???

    Don’t tell me we accept “mistakes” They got caught or same style would prevail. They all need jail time, and I get 10% of the take IRS gets, as the informant or whistle blower.

  3. I’ve been waiting for another Blago story so I could use this term from “The Futurological Congress.”


    one who gives bribes

  4. doglover,
    I agree with the first part of your posting, but the quid quo pro for the Burris seat could have been the job that his son received from Blago only 5 months ago. I don’t think it is a race issue. It is a political issue.

  5. Why was Ted Stevens allowed to stay in the Senate even after conviction? Then they even held a tribute to the man in the Senate. Stevens was also allowed to run for office with his crimes hanging over his head. Burris called someone to raise money for the big-haired gov (a normal type of thing), didn’t actually raise any money for the gov (so no quid pro quo there)and they’ve tried and convicted Burris. Is the difference race? I’m just askin’.

  6. It doesn’t look good for either Burris I or Burris II! Not only does Sen. Burriss have to contend with the perjury allegations, the son getting a job from Blago just 5 months ago looks a lot like a quid quo pro to me. Time for the Burris family to exit from the public scene and the public coffers.

Comments are closed.