Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mavdog
really? so if delta airlines issued a press release saying they "earned" $3 billion when they had "received" $3 billion in revenues but had a loss of $1 Billion on that income it would be merely a "semantical" error?
no, it wouldn't. the article was misleading and inaccurate.
|
No, it wasn't. The "article" was a blog post talking about media coverage, and anybody (including you) who has been following the story knew exactly what they meant.
Quote:
yes, did you? what in reids investment, the formation of the LLC and subsequent sale of the property is "questionable"?
from the article, his partner has questionable ties to what seems to be "undesireable" people, but what exactly is "questionable" about the "land deal"? it is a very clear and typical real estate investment...he bought it at a price, held it, improved its value by gaining entitlements and sold it to a developer who purchased reid's piece and adjacent tracts (an assembledge).
|
I'd suggest you read Ed Morrissey's column that I posted above.
Quote:
|
so the writer knew that reid did own it for the three years? bottom line, he DID own it. period.
|
The blog entry and the AP article were correct. If Reid transfers the land to the L.L.C., he no longer has legal ownership of it in his individual capacity. You tried to attack the article as inaccurate, and you were wrong.
Quote:
like I said days ago, if there is a violation enforce the penalty. I've yet to read of ANY violation other than the failure to update the disclosure form to show the property was hled in an LLC rather than personally. it was still disclosed, both on the acquisition and the sale.
so tell me, what law other than the update did reid violate?
|
That remains to be seen. Of course, I'm not holding my breath, because no investigation into Dirty Harry's partnership(s) (there are more than just the partnership with Jay Brown) will be investigated. Bottom line, Harry didn't want anybody to know about his partnership with Jay Brown. Why? That's the question that needs to be (but won't be) answered.