Log in

View Full Version : Reid Got $1M in Land Sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property .....



ducks
10-11-2006, 03:33 PM
Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale Today, 01:22 PM



http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebu...ap3083826.html

AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale
By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY , 10.11.2006

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing - except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.

The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties - regardless of profit or loss - and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

Other parts of the deal - such as the informal handling of property taxes - raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.

SALE HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS

Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.

Despite the sale, Reid continued to report on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in 2004. His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.

AP first learned of the transaction from a former Reid aide who expressed concern the deal hadn't been properly reported.

Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings.

"We have been friends for over 35 years. We didn't need a written agreement between us," Brown said.

The informalities didn't stop there.

PROPERTY TAXES LOOSELY HANDLED

Brown sometimes paid a share of the local property taxes on the lot Reid owned outright between 1998 and 2001, while Reid sometimes paid more than his share of taxes on the second parcel they co-owned.

And the two men continued to pay the property taxes from their personal checking accounts even after the land was sold to Patrick Lane in 2001, records show.

Brown said Reid first approached him in 1997 about land purchases and the two men considered the two lots a single investment.

"During the years of ownership, there may have been occasions that he advanced the property taxes, or that I advanced the property taxes," Brown said. "The bottom line is that between ourselves we always settled up and each of us paid our respective percentages."

Ultimately, Reid paid about 74 percent of the property taxes, slightly less than his actual 75.1 ownership stake, according to canceled checks kept at the local assessor's office. One year, the property tax payments were delinquent and resulted in a small penalty, the records show.

Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. "It might be a gift," Cooper said.

Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid but it was unlikely to prompt an investigation. "If someone is paying a liability you owe, there may be some income imputed. But at that level, it's pretty small dollars," he said.

FEDERAL LAND SWAPS

Nevada land deeds show Reid and his wife first bought the property in January 1998 in a proposed subdivision created partly with federal lands transferred by the Interior Department to private developers.

Reid's two lots were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner - a key to the shopping center deal - came from the government in 1994.

One of the sellers was Fred Lessman, a vice president of land acquisition at Perma-Bilt Homes.

Around the time of the 1998 sale, Lessman and his company were completing a complicated federal land transfer that also involved an Arizona-based developer named Del Webb Corp.

In the deal, Del Webb and Perma-Bilt purchased environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area, transferred them to the government and then got in exchange several pieces of valuable Las Vegas land.

Lessman was personally involved, writing a March 1997 letter to Interior lobbying for the deal. "This exchange has been through many trials and tribulations ... we do not need to create any more stumbling blocks," Lessman wrote.

For years, Reid also had been encouraging Interior to make land swaps on behalf of Del Webb, where one of his former aides worked.

In 1994, Reid wrote a letter with other Nevada lawmakers on behalf of Del Webb, and then met personally with a top federal land official in Nevada. That official claimed in media reports he felt pressured by the senator. Reid denied any pressure.

The next year, Reid collected $18,000 in political donations from Del Webb's political action committee and employees. Del Webb's efforts to get federal land dragged on.

In December 1996, Reid wrote a second letter on behalf of Del Webb, urging Interior to answer the company's concerns. The deal came together in summer and fall 1997, with Perma-Bilt joining in.

In January 1998 - just days before he bought his land - Reid applauded the Lake Tahoe land transfers, saying they would create the "gateway to paradise."

None of Reid's letters mentioned Perma-Bilt. Reid's office said the senator never met Lessman nor discussed the Lake Tahoe land transfer or his personal land purchase. A real estate attorney handled the 1998 sale at arms-length, aides said.

"This land investment was completely unrelated to federal land swaps that took place in the mid-1990's," Manley said.

Lessman said he never talked to Reid or asked for his help before the 1998 land sale, and only met the senator years later at a public event. "Any suggestion that the land sale between Senator Reid and myself is somehow tied in with the Perma-Bilt exchange is completely absurd," Lessman said.

THE REZONING

Clark County intended for the property Reid owned to be used solely for new housing, records show. Just days before Reid sold the parcels to Brown's company, Brown sought permission in May 2001 to rezone the properties so a shopping center could be built.

Career zoning officials objected, saying the request was "inconsistent" with Clark County's master development plan. The town board in Spring Valley, where Reid's property was located, also voted 4-1 to reject the rezoning.

Brown persisted. The Clark County zoning board followed by the Clark County Commission voted to overrule the recommendation and approve commercial zoning. Such votes were common at the time.

Before the approval in September 2001, Brown's consultant told commissioners that Reid was involved. "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you," the consultant testified.

With the rezoning granted, Patrick Lane pursued the shopping center deal. On Jan. 20, 2004, the company sold the property to developers for $1.6 million. Today, a multimillion dollar retail complex sits on the land.

On Jan. 21, 2004, Reid received more than $1.1 million of the sale proceeds. Reid disclosed the money the following year on his Senate ethics report as a personal sale of land, not mentioning Patrick Lane.

A BUSINESS PARTNER'S PAST

Brown has been a behind-the-scenes power broker in Nevada for years, donating to Democrats, Republicans and charities. He represented a major casino in legal cases and dabbled in Nevada's booming real estate market.

Brown befriended Reid four decades ago, even before Reid served as chairman of the Nevada gaming commission and decided cases involving Brown's clients.

Brown's name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s.

This past summer, federal prosecutors introduced testimony at the bribery trial of former Clark County Commission chairman Dario Herrara that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrara was convicted of taking kickbacks. Brown was never called as a witness.

Brown declined to discuss past cases where his name surfaced, including Herrara. "The federal government investigated this whole matter thoroughly, and there was never any implication of impropriety on my part," he said.

Johnny_Blaze_47
10-11-2006, 03:37 PM
Goddamn liberal medi....oh, wait.

Carry on.

Yonivore
10-11-2006, 03:39 PM
Goddamn liberal medi....oh, wait.

Carry on.
Hey, some things can't be swept under the rug. Besides, he made the mistake of hanging up on the reporter. I'm sure it pissed him off.

01Snake
10-11-2006, 03:40 PM
Goddamn liberal medi....oh, wait.

Carry on.


off topic...HOW BOUT' THOSE COWBOYS! :lol:

Carry on..

JoeChalupa
10-11-2006, 03:54 PM
That damn liberal media held onto this information for political reasons and now just released it to deflect the attention from the Foley scandal!!

Those bastards!! :cuss

Yonivore
10-11-2006, 04:02 PM
That damn liberal media held onto this information for political reasons and now just released it to deflect the attention from the Foley scandal!!

Those bastards!! :cuss
The AP Interview was last week and there are no allegations this information was known by anyone in the media or the Republican Party before then.

JoeChalupa
10-11-2006, 04:07 PM
The AP Interview was last week and there are no allegations this information was known by anyone in the media or the Republican Party before then.

Sounds very familiar.

Yonivore
10-11-2006, 04:09 PM
Sounds very familiar.
To what? Democratic operatives shopping the Foley story around for months with no takers?

Yeah, very familiar Joe.

JoeChalupa
10-11-2006, 04:10 PM
I say we launch an internal investigation just to be sure. Can't be too careful these days.

Yonivore
10-11-2006, 04:11 PM
I say we launch an internal investigation just to be sure. Can't be too careful these days.
Whatever floats your boat Joe.

JoeChalupa
10-11-2006, 04:31 PM
Hey, if he's guilty than he should resign and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Does that float your boat?

Yonivore
10-11-2006, 04:42 PM
Hey, if he's guilty than he should resign and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Does that float your boat?
Yep. But, using that logic, the entire Democrat side of the aisle probably should do the same.

clambake
10-11-2006, 04:58 PM
DC is corrupt. Period. But if your complaint is nothing more than keeping score, then Iraq is the only game in town.

Nbadan
10-11-2006, 05:18 PM
OK, but John Soloman is a Rove hack...



The Claim:

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show."

--snip--

"Actually, he did own that land. It just so happened that three years ago, he transfered the property from his own personal name to that of an LLC.

It'd be kind of like me selling Daily Kos, and someone claiming I reaped a windfall from it because I "sold it three years ago". I didn't. Daily Kos became an LLC. As did Reid's piece of land.

And btw, this was all disclosed to the ethics committee. The place were things got sloppy is that Reid continued to disclose ownership of the land as a personal asset rather than ownership in the LLC which owned the land. But that's it. Fact is, the LLC had no other assets other than this piece of land, and Reid disclosed ownership of the piece of land."

Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/11/175829/67)

John Solomon is the guy who tried to paint Reid as corrupt before in the boxing tickets "scandal", it seems he was taking liberties with some of the facts, and glossing over other exculpatory facts. .

You don't suppose this guy has an axe to grind, do you?

JoeChalupa
10-11-2006, 05:39 PM
Hmmm.

Ocotillo
10-11-2006, 05:44 PM
You don't suppose this guy has an axe to grind, do you?

If you support conservatives like this guy does, it's a great time to grind an axe since the election is coming up and Republicans look about as popular as fresh spinach these days.

ChumpDumper
10-11-2006, 06:02 PM
What exactly are we supposed to be upset about?

Ocotillo
10-11-2006, 06:06 PM
What exactly are we supposed to be upset about?

good question. Reid is a chump (no offense). He should have used earmarks to enhance his property's value like Hastert, Pombo and a bunch of other GOPers. He made money the old fashion with a smart investment. That is so pre-'94.

101A
10-12-2006, 09:02 AM
What exactly are we supposed to be upset about?


Did you read the whole thing?

Initial land deal looks like a sweet-heart quid pro quo arrangement. The central character in the mess is a cat with (unproven) historical ties to organized crime. Property taxes and reporting were all handled loosely, EPA land transfers are involved with developers from multiple states, campaign contributions, arm twisting of local officials, AND Reid ends up with 10,000 BENJAMINS when the whole thing is over.

Too complicated for the American public to get excited about (blowjobs from Interns and/or paiges they get); but if it were investigated fully, I'm sure it would just be more eveidence that, ultimately, Congress serves, first and foremost, Congressmen.

Drive Like Jehu
10-12-2006, 09:42 AM
Goddamn liberal medi....oh, wait.

Carry on.


I'm sure this will be a top story for the next several weeks...
:rolleyes

TDMVPDPOY
10-12-2006, 11:10 AM
where can i sign up biatch for my share

George Gervin's Afro
10-12-2006, 11:12 AM
Yep. But, using that logic, the entire Democrat side of the aisle probably should do the same.



are you implying only the democrats break the law? your not that blinded are you yoni?

101A
10-12-2006, 11:22 AM
where can i sign up biatch for my share


Get your name on a congressional ballot.
Win.

George Gervin's Afro
10-12-2006, 11:32 AM
Did you read the whole thing?

Initial land deal looks like a sweet-heart quid pro quo arrangement. The central character in the mess is a cat with (unproven) historical ties to organized crime. Property taxes and reporting were all handled loosely, EPA land transfers are involved with developers from multiple states, campaign contributions, arm twisting of local officials, AND Reid ends up with 10,000 BENJAMINS when the whole thing is over.

Too complicated for the American public to get excited about (blowjobs from Interns and/or paiges they get); but if it were investigated fully, I'm sure it would just be more eveidence that, ultimately, Congress serves, first and foremost, Congressmen.


Bingo!

ChumpDumper
10-12-2006, 12:12 PM
Did you read the whole thing?

Initial land deal looks like a sweet-heart quid pro quo arrangement. The central character in the mess is a cat with (unproven) historical ties to organized crime. Property taxes and reporting were all handled loosely, EPA land transfers are involved with developers from multiple states, campaign contributions, arm twisting of local officials, AND Reid ends up with 10,000 BENJAMINS when the whole thing is over.

Too complicated for the American public to get excited about (blowjobs from Interns and/or paiges they get); but if it were investigated fully, I'm sure it would just be more eveidence that, ultimately, Congress serves, first and foremost, Congressmen.I did read the whole thing. Really not much there from a legal standpoint. He should have reported that the way he owned the land had changed, but that's far from impeachable.

101A
10-12-2006, 02:22 PM
I did read the whole thing. Really not much there from a legal standpoint. He should have reported that the way he owned the land had changed, but that's far from impeachable.


I'm sure legally it will all stand up to scrutiny, after all, who rights the laws? Reid apparently anticipated the smell that might eminate from this deal. I bet that's why he didn't report the "sale" in the first place. It was too near the time of the initial purchase - which considering there were campaign contributions, federal land grants, et al; is probably where the more questionable practices occurred.

Now the story is about the reporting, not the original deal. Why'd he hang up on the reporter? To buy himself time to get his story straight, T's crossed and I's dotted and all that.

ChumpDumper
10-12-2006, 02:27 PM
Reid already had the land--he just switched some of the legal liability to a corporation. He didn't make that public in the report, which was a mistake, but it was hardly a secret since his partner publicly announced Reid's stake in local government hearings. There's just not alot of meat here.

JoeChalupa
10-12-2006, 02:35 PM
Looking for meat is what got Foley in hot water.

xrayzebra
10-12-2006, 02:48 PM
If the dimm-craps do it, it is not a big deal. Only the Republicans have a
culture of corruption. I love Reid's little statement about they are big buddies
and don't need to put things on paper. Except Reid's buddy has been connected
to the mob in the past. But never mind, we got to protect the pages, even when
the congressman has resigned. Wonder if Reid pay the correct taxes on something
he cant document. What happens if they audit him?

George Gervin's Afro
10-12-2006, 02:58 PM
If the dimm-craps do it, it is not a big deal. Only the Republicans have a
culture of corruption. I love Reid's little statement about they are big buddies
and don't need to put things on paper. Except Reid's buddy has been connected
to the mob in the past. But never mind, we got to protect the pages, even when
the congressman has resigned. Wonder if Reid pay the correct taxes on something
he cant document. What happens if they audit him?


he knows a guy who may have connections to the mob makes him guilty?

I'm all for keeping anyone in Congress accountable to the law but this reeks of desperation..

One more time Ray Foley abused his position to attempt to have sexual contact with a minor..

The House leadership denied ever hearing about it until it recently...now it is apparent that is not completely true..

You playing stupid is wearing thin on me..!

101A
10-12-2006, 03:02 PM
he knows a guy who may have connections to the mob makes him guilty?


No, he has a unreported, non-documented part ownership of a company/piece of land relating to a govt/epa land swap, with subsequent arm-twisting of a zoning board for a favorable change in definition, tied in with a couple of developers/campaign contributors, with a guy who may have connections to the mob.

But don't worry, it's really all about failing to report a land sale, oh, and Republicans want amnesty for pedophiles.

George Gervin's Afro
10-12-2006, 03:06 PM
No, he has a unreported, non-documented part ownership of a company/piece of land relating to a govt/epa land swap, with subsequent arm-twisting of a zoning board for a favorable change in definition, tied in with a couple of developers/campaign contributors, with a guy who may have connections to the mob.

But don't worry, it's really all about failing to report a land sale, oh, and Republicans want amnesty for pedophiles.


I heard about the supposed 'arm twisting' concerning the rezoning on the hush show today..any proof of that? Or is that an assumption that has to made to make this weak case stick?

xrayzebra
10-12-2006, 03:07 PM
he knows a guy who may have connections to the mob makes him guilty? No just stupid for doing business with the mob



One more time Ray Foley abused his position to attempt to have sexual contact with a minor..Yeah, I know Reid would never abuse his position. He is pure as driven snow.



The House leadership denied ever hearing about it until it recently...now it is apparent that is not completely true..

You playing stupid is wearing thin on me..!

Oh, well sorry I am aggravation to you. But who really cares, except you..
[ :lol

101A
10-12-2006, 03:21 PM
I heard about the supposed 'arm twisting' concerning the rezoning on the hush show today..any proof of that? Or is that an assumption that has to made to make this weak case stick?


Look, I've got no idea; I've only read a couple of reports on this, but there is certainly enough for me to assume:


Reid knew it might not look good (not reporting the sale and hanging up on the reporter)
Reid netted at least a million bucks, and presumably so did his friend and other campaign contributors.
It was all facilitated by action at the federal level which Reid was supporting and/or even pushing.
It smells (and there are no doubt deals like this ALL over the place with fed congressman, state congressman & city council members, from all walks of life and all sides of the aisle)

ChumpDumper
10-12-2006, 04:00 PM
I agree it smells, but it's unlikely anything will come of this.

Yonivore
10-12-2006, 04:02 PM
His hanging up on the AP Reporter is a good clue that he was caught with his pants down around his ankles on this one.

We'll see where it leads.

JoeChalupa
10-12-2006, 04:03 PM
If the dimm-craps do it, it is not a big deal. Only the Republicans have a
culture of corruption. I love Reid's little statement about they are big buddies
and don't need to put things on paper. Except Reid's buddy has been connected
to the mob in the past. But never mind, we got to protect the pages, even when
the congressman has resigned. Wonder if Reid pay the correct taxes on something
he cant document. What happens if they audit him?

If repug-a-craps hide a pedophile the issue is "When did the Dems know about IT!". Please. :rolleyes

JoeChalupa
10-12-2006, 04:04 PM
His hanging up on the AP Reporter is a good clue that he was caught with his pants down around his ankles on this one.

We'll see where it leads.

That sounds more like one of Foley's pages.

Yonivore
10-12-2006, 04:07 PM
That sounds more like one of Foley's pages.
Has it been discovered yet that he actually had sex with an underage page? I've kind of lost interest in the story once it was discovered that all who were involved may have been consenting adults and that his communications with underage pages may have been limited to e-mails asking for pictures and stuff.

And, actually, the reference probably sounds more like Bill Clinton or Sandy Berger.

JoeChalupa
10-12-2006, 04:10 PM
Consenting adults? Oh, you mean like Bill and Monica. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yonivore
10-12-2006, 04:13 PM
Consenting adults? Oh, you mean like Bill and Monica. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yep. Unlike non-consenting adults like Juanita Brodderick.

But, we haven't even gotten to the sexual harrassment aspects of Foley's behavior, have we? Hey, you don't hear anyone crying over the scumbags departure. I think cavorting with pages (and interns), over whom you have responsibility, is despicable.

Ocotillo
10-12-2006, 05:50 PM
this thing smells alright. It smells like another manufactured "scandal" by the right to try and distract people from the foul odor emanating from the Republican side of the aisle. Reminds me of Whitewater. Clinton was smeared with that for years and nothing came of it for him. Second verse, same as the first.

Nbadan
10-12-2006, 07:35 PM
No, he has a unreported, non-documented part ownership of a company/piece of land relating to a govt/epa land swap, with subsequent arm-twisting of a zoning board for a favorable change in definition, tied in with a couple of developers/campaign contributors, with a guy who may have connections to the mob.

But don't worry, it's really all about failing to report a land sale, oh, and Republicans want amnesty for pedophiles.

1) There was no transaction in 2001 to report, the land owned by two partners became an LLC owned by the same partners in same percentages.

2) Reid reported the sale in 2004 where he made 700k profit (1.1m was the sale price not the profit)

3) Read the article closely for specific accusations it actually makes. Try to find one that has any significance. Even all the talk about the ADJACENT land swap deal was completed before Reid bought it --you or I could have bought the same parcel and sold it for the same amount.

4) As for "personally owned", A tax attorney on Daily Kos wrote the following: "A multiple member LLC is treated as a partnership for tax purposes. Again, if an existing partnership transfers property to an LLC owned by the same partners in the same percentages, the LLC will usually be treated as the same entity as the orignal partnership, and again an individual might reasonably believe that no transfer has taken place."

This is like me transferring my co-owned home to a living trust and then years later, selling it and making money off of it. Anything wrong with that if I reported the sale? Of course not and that's what Reid did. Do I need to report that I put land in a trust run by the same original owners. No.

- Thanks to creekdog of DU for that research.

PixelPusher
10-12-2006, 08:25 PM
1) There was no transaction in 2001 to report, the land owned by two partners became an LLC owned by the same partners in same percentages.

2) Reid reported the sale in 2004 where he made 700k profit (1.1m was the sale price not the profit)

3) Read the article closely for specific accusations it actually makes. Try to find one that has any significance. Even all the talk about the ADJACENT land swap deal was completed before Reid bought it --you or I could have bought the same parcel and sold it for the same amount.

4) As for "personally owned", A tax attorney on Daily Kos wrote the following: "A multiple member LLC is treated as a partnership for tax purposes. Again, if an existing partnership transfers property to an LLC owned by the same partners in the same percentages, the LLC will usually be treated as the same entity as the orignal partnership, and again an individual might reasonably believe that no transfer has taken place."

This is like me transferring my co-owned home to a living trust and then years later, selling it and making money off of it. Anything wrong with that if I reported the sale? Of course not and that's what Reid did. Do I need to report that I put land in a trust run by the same original owners. No.

- Thanks to creekdog of DU for that research.


Nbadan having to explain the concept of LLC's to Yoni and 101A. Now I've seen everything.

Yonivore
10-13-2006, 06:48 PM
Okay, here's the Harry Reid scam, by the numbers:

1. What he did (http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/4381-The-Harry-Reid-Land-Deal.html).


As Curt over at Flopping Aces points out, this deal really isn't that hard to understand: In 1998, Reid bought the land, zoned for residential use, for $400,000.

In 2001, Reid sold the land for no profit to a friend, getting a share of the limited liability company that held the property.

The LLC tried to get the land rezoned for commercial use, but was rebuffed by the Clark County Zoning Commission.

The LLC then appealled the decision to the full Clark County Commission and lobbied the commission, going so far as invoking Reid's name to the commission in a public hearing on the matter.

The zoning commission's original decision was then vetoed, and they rezoned the property for commercial use.

In 2004, the property was sold for $1.6 million, netting the LLC $1.2 million profit.

Reid never reported the sale of the property to the LLC, as he is required by law to do.
2. Why he did this (http://instapundit.com/archives/033199.php).


THE BEST CASE for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is that he was sloppy about financial disclosure rules in accounting for a real estate deal on which he made a $700,000 profit. The more unattractive case is that the senator's inaccurate description of the investment was an effort to disguise his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer who's never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s. As of now, the evidence points toward sloppiness; Mr. Reid's friendship with Jay Brown isn't exactly a secret in the state. But either way, an Associated Press report about Mr. Reid's dealings doesn't cast the senator in an attractive light. Neither does his response to the AP story, which indicates a casual disregard for the importance of accurate reporting of lawmakers' financial affairs. . . .

Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong. His investment was not reported in a manner that made clear his partnership with Mr. Brown. It's true -- under the inadequate financial disclosure rules -- that even if Mr. Reid had listed the newly formed corporation, Patrick Lane LLC, that wouldn't have by itself demonstrated Mr. Brown's involvement. Nonetheless, that Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane corporation, was not some mere "technical change," as the senator would like to brush it off. It's an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined.
That's from the Washington Post, by the way.

Instapundit just has more on the link.

3. Even more reason why he did this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzliMWU2NzI2NDhlY2VhZTljMDRmNjg5OWVmYjczOTM=).


Land deals are the meat-and-potatoes of government corruption, sometimes illegal, sometimes merely smelly. Behind every crooked politician, there's a crooked land deal. My first big story was the existential essence of the land deal: a couple of the local pols used insider advance knowledge to buy up land around a proposed freeway interchange for resale under the name of a dummy company.

The goverment builds on, buys, sells, or rezones land. Said land increases in value. Pols, friends, relatives invariably exploit the change. Harry's part of a grand bipartisan tradition. If more reporters were covering this stuff at City Hall, there would be many fewer bad guys of either party in Congress.
4. How the media is covering it (http://www.newbusters.org/).

Short answer: It's not. Although Instapundit links several print editorials about the scandal, the TV media is almost entirely embargoing it. Just keep scrolling at Newsbusters to see that it hardly rates a mention, anywhwere, while Mark Foley continues getting multiple mentions per newscast.

The most brazen and absurd non-coverage comes, of course, from the New York Times.

They do mention the story.

Check it out (http://newsbusters.org/node/8290):


New York Times reporter Philip Shenon covers the possible financial scandal involving House Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid…very carefully. For one, "Senator Offers to Amend Financial Forms" is the most benign headline imaginable -- as if Reid is doing everyone a favor by offering to follow the law.

Contrast that with the negative headline over the Times' AP story about Republican Sen. George Allen from Monday, which has no problem focusing the blame: "Virginia Senator Did Not Disclose Stock Options.

Nbadan
10-14-2006, 12:18 AM
Reid never reported the sale of the property to the LLC, as he is required by law to do.

Reid reported the sale in 2004 where he made 700k profit (1.1m was the sale price not the profit).

The premise of the idiotic article by Solomon is that Senator Reid hid the sale by not reporting the sale of the property into the limited liability company. That is completely bogus. The contribution of property into a partnership or limited liability company (which is normally taxed as a partnership) is tax free and is not a sale. Senator Reid reported that he owned the property and reported the gain on the sale. I doubt that there is a reporting requirement for non sale or not taxable events and so the whole claim is bogus.