(How not like a repugniklan, they wait until they are arrested to come clean, if ever...) Reid Decides to Amend Ethics Reports Oct 16 1:26 PM US/Eastern By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid announced Monday he is amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a land deal that allowed him to collect $1.1 million for property he hadn't personally owned for three years. Reid acted several days after The Associated Press reported the senator didn't disclose to Congress that he first sold the land to a friend's company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He didn't collect the seven-figure payout until the company sold the land again in 2004 to others. Reid said his amended ethics reports will list the 2001 sale. "I directed my staff to file amended financial disclosure forms noting that in 2001, I transferred title to the land to a Limited Liability Corporation," Reid said in a statement issued by his office. Reid said he believed the 2001 sale did not alter his ownership of the land but that he agreed to file the amended reports because "I believe in ensuring all facts come to light." Reid blamed the AP story as a "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress. Reid also announced he failed to disclose two other land transactions on his prior ethics reports and would account for those on his amended reports.
I still think this AP writer is an idiot. Transfer of assets to an LLC does not constitute a legal "sale" if the percentage ownership of the original assets and the LLC are identical. So the pertinent question is whether there was a change in the ownership percentage when the LLC was formed. Without asking that question, no one knows whether there was a relevant ethics question. Maybe this "liberal" media just thought it was an opportune time to smear a Democrat.
Wow, what an honest guy! But you left out the best part, z. Nice way to skirt the law by not having a written agreement. In 1998, Reid purchased undeveloped residential property on the outskirts of Las Vegas for $400,000. He bought one lot outright, and a second lot with a partner, Jay Brown. In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a corporation created by Brown. Reid retained an ownership stake in the corporation and continued to pay taxes on the property. There was no written agreement; Brown told the Associated Press that the two had been friends for 35 years and didn't need one. So the Senate Democratic leader engaged in a seven-figure handshake and didn't feel the need to disclose all the details. Experts on Senate ethics rules say Reid should have disclosed the sale in 2001 on his annual ethics report, and informed Congress of his part-ownership in Brown's corporation. Reid didn't. After the land was rezoned for a shopping center, the corporation sold it in 2004. Reid received $1.1 million in the sale, turning a neat profit of nearly $700,000 in six years. While now insisting he did nothing wrong, Reid is also offering to make a "technical change" to his earlier ethics reports if the ethics committee so desires. Simply giving the Democratic leader a mulligan is hardly the way to handle this case. When the Senate debated ethics reforms earlier this year, Reid was out in front to demand the toughest of standards from lawmakers. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15745416.htm
I don't know whether you're being deliberately ignorant. Written agreements are not required by law. And not having one does not in any way allows you to skirt the law. Written agreements are needed to protect partners against each other. I can only assume that the sole purpose of your statement here is to smear.
Manley said that Reid continued to report in his Senate disclosure forms that the land belonged to him rather than to Patrick Lane LLC, the company to which he had transferred it. The reason, he said, was that the senator dealt with the property as if it were still his. Nonetheless, disclosure experts said that the Senate's rules do not permit such a lapse. "Signing over a deed is a basic legal step and is the kind of thing that needs to be disclosed," said Kent Cooper, the former disclosure chief of the Federal Election Commission and co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html?nav=hcmodule
Yeah, and mob guys doing drug trades don't have written agreements to protect them from each other?? no, they don't put anything in writing because they want to skirt all the laws of the land they can, tax laws, drug laws, etc.
Not having a written agreement in forming an LLC is perfectly legal and does not in any way allow you or give you the opportunity to skirt the law. Either you have an iq of 50 or you're intentionally pretending to be ignorant.
As far as the LLC is concerned, transfer of the assets is not considered a legal sale if the percent ownership is not changed before and after the transfer. We don't know whether this covers Reid's sale unless we know the precise percentage ownership of the land and the LLC. That's why I said the reporter was an idiot.
I guess the head of the FEC is an idiot too. This doesn't pass the smell test. Hopefully the House Ethics Committee will conduct a thorough hearing. After all, if things are the way he says they are, then Harry Reid has nothing to fear but maybe a slap on the wrist. But you guys keep posting what a swell guy Harry Reid is. It's that damn right wing conspiracy again!