Did Obama say he only worked 5 hours for indicted Rezko in S.C. debate?

[candice]

...while he was working on a case as a corporate lawyer? Do I remember correctly?

If so, why is there a long history of Obama's involvement with this slumlord for personal profit?

As an aside, there's an upcoming court case with an unknown politician...and one politician who seems to have criss-crossed Rezko's path is Barack Obama.

This long-term documented relationship with Rezko, and the fact that Obama attacked his opponent last night for taking money from lobbyists--we have to make those TV ads free on the people's airwaves--while claiming to have not taken "one dime" is not a good political move. The facts can be verified and the truth reflects badly on the attacker.

Maybe some creative accounting and semantics allow Obama to ignore once-removed lobbyists' monies. There are ten federally registered lobbyist working as bundlers for his campaign (see recent Public Citizen report), and Obama's campaign takes money from lobbyist equivalents. A rose is a rose is a rose.

Is this the "character" that we are supposed to respect?

Here's a link to the Rezko connection:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. More to come nt

[thunder rising]

2. Great, one blog entry supporting another. What's that saying about telling a lie long enough?

[rodeodance]

24. Rovian tactic is to KILL THE MESSENGER!--

[JackORoses]

33. RodeoClown tactic is to Shill the Message!

[CyberPieHole]

3. Kick and rec for Rezko n/t

[Pirate Smile]

4. Here you go:

The Real Story of Rezko and Obama: 10 Myths Debunked

by JohnKWilson
Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM PST

Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama campaign.

There’s been a huge amount of misinformation and rumor about Barack Obama’s dealings with Tony Rezko. This is not a new story. At the first Democratic debate in 2007, Brian Williams of NBC asked Obama about his connections to Rezko. The same thing happened on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. But it’s a complex set of charges, and a lot of details have been falsely reported on blogs and in the mainstream press.

Here are 10 myths debunked about Obama and Rezko:

JohnKWilson's diary :: ::
Myth #1: Obama did legal work for Rezko

Claim: Hillary Clinton during a debate denounced Obama for "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

The truth: According to Factcheck.org, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was ‘representing ... Rezko.’ That's untrue."

Myth #2: Obama knew Rezko was a slumlord

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in 1997, Rezko’s company failed to turn the heat back on in one of his buildings, while giving $1,000 to Obama’s campaign fund.

The truth: There’s no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko’s buildings. A state senator doesn’t deal with tenant complaints, and the Chicago newspapers never reported on Rezko’s problems as a landlord until after he was indicted. According to the Chicago Tribune, "in the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets." http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It’s the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn’t offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It’s not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that’s been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very many millionaires (it’s not Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast). Therefore, a pricey mansion is very difficult to sell, while a $300,000 townhouse is very common.

Myth #4: Rezko’s lot was a front (yard) deal

Claim: One blogger declared it was "a $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator" because "the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land."

The truth: It’s insane to think that Obama arranged for Rezko to buy the lot as his front yard, and never intended for anyone to develop it. If Obama had arranged such a deal, it would be crazy for him to spend $104,500 to buy part of the land from Rezko. There is not even the slightest evidence to support this notion.

Myth #5: Obama underpaid (or overpaid) for the slice of Rezko’s lot

Claim: John Kass declared: "Obama’s appraiser told him the fair market value of that slice was $40,500. Since that’s one-sixth of the Rezko side, it means Rezko paid $625,000 for property that was actually worth $243,000. That would make Rezko a complete fool. But he’s no fool." Fox News Channel incorrectly reported that Rezko "sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value."

The truth: The appraiser was clearly wrong (probably basing the low value on the fact that 1/6th of the lot was too small for any house, which would dramatically reduce its value standing alone). That’s why Obama decided to buy 1/6th of Rezko’s lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it ($104,500). A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000, resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

Myth #6: Obama hasn’t returned all the money linked to Rezko’s donations

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times accused Obama of downplaying the $50,000–$60,000 in donations he received from Rezko (Rezko, before his legal troubles started, had cohosted a fundraiser for Obama). The newspaper claimed the actual amount was $168,000.

The truth: The Sun Times came up with that figure by counting every donation to Obama from anyone ever associated with Rezko, even if there was no evidence Rezko prompted the donation. Obama donated additional money to charity, but he’s under no obligation (legal or even moral) to return every dollar ever linked to Rezko. If you play a game of "six degrees of separation" with Rezko, he’s linked to almost every politician in Chicago.

Myth #7: Rezko had a special relationship with Obama

Claim: The Clinton campaign denounces "Sen. Obama's 17-year relationship with the indicted influence peddler."

The truth: Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians. Rezko donated money to every major Democratic politician in Illinois, then helped organize a $3.5 million fundraiser for President George W. Bush in 2003. After giving large campaign donations to Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Rezko arranged to have his buddies appointed by Blagojevich to state boards such as the Teachers’ Retirement System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. With his friend Stuart Levine, Rezko threatened to hold up a $220 million deal to invest teachers’ pension fund money unless $2 million was paid to Levine or $1.5 million was donated to Blagojevich’s campaign. Rezko and Levine also demanded a $1 million cut from a developer to build a hospital. Rezko was indicted for pretending to sell his Papa John’s pizza restaurants while secretly maintaining control of them, and fraudulently using the transaction to get $10 million in loans. It is Blagojevich, not Obama, who did favors for Rezko. Rezko’s eye for scouting political talent was amazing, but he did not capitalize on Obama’s influence. Obama said he had known Rezko for twenty years and "he had never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him."

Myth #8: Obama did favors for Rezko

Claim: Chicago Sun-Times revealed that in 1998, Obama wrote a letter endorsing a low-income housing development for which Rezko was a codeveloper. As the Sun-Times put it, "NOT A FAVOR? As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer’s deal." Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote, "No favors? When you transcend politics and walk on water, I guess it all depends on what your definition of favor is."

The truth: The common definition of a favor in this context is a political action done in exchange for donations. Rezko’s lawyer reported that Rezko had not asked Obama to write the letter. Instead, Obama (along with a local state representative and an alderman) endorsed the project because it had widespread community support. It’s difficult to imagine any politician on the south side of Chicago who wouldn’t have a routine letter written to endorse government funding for affordable housing and social services for low-income senior citizens in that area. When it came to political influence, Obama didn’t do any favors for Rezko. The Chicago Tribune reported, "when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it."

Myth #9: Obama should have known about Rezko’s sleazy background

Claim: The Chicago Tribune, although endorsing Obama, wrote: "His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004."

The truth: At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko’s problems. When Obama bought a small strip of Rezko’s land in 2006, rumors were swirling around Chicago that the federal government was investigating Rezko, but he wasn’t indicted until October 2006. The Tribune stories before 2006 reveal that Rezko was a tightly connected political player, but the evidence of criminal misconduct wasn’t proven.

Myth #10: Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about his mistakes with Rezko

Claim: The Chicago Tribune editorialized, "Obama has been too self-exculpatory."

The truth: Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him. Obama declared, "I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern. I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship." Obama’s mistake was in allowing the appearance of impropriety. He never actually did anything wrong. And that’s the key issue here.

Despite all of these rumors about Obama and Rezko, none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing. Conservative Republican Tom Bevan called the evidence against Obama "pretty darn weak." Conor Clarke of the New Republic reported that Obama’s real estate deal with Rezko was a "nonscandal." According to Clarke, "journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/171056/015

[stillcool]

8. there is so much of this information..

readily available to any who choose to look...but thank you so much for providing it all in one place.

[candice]

12. So it was a 5 hour relationship as he asserted in the debate?

[desi]

5. He sure did.

And maybe two or three of his supporters believed him. The rest know it was a lie or maybe even a "youthful indiscretion."

[TankLV]

6. yes - obama GROSSLY LIED about his INTIMATE EXTENSIVE involvement with Rezko...

and also his HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of DOLLARS he received over YEARS he was PERSONALLY his LAWYER...

[stillcool]

9. He was never his personal attorney...

and he did not lie. You just never bothered to look for the truth.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

32. Possibly 20 K in illegal donations that WILL BE talked about at the trial!

[doc03]

7. The MSM is in love with Obama so

they will sit on the story just like they have with GWB.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Just until the GE. Then they will use it to destroy him. n/t

[Thrill]

14. They better have something better than Rezco

This isn't enough to sink anyone.

[stillcool]

11. November 5, 2006

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake

November 5, 2006
BY DAVE MCKINNEY AND CHRIS FUSCO Staff Reporters Contributing: Mark Brown

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator's yard.

"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question-and-answer exchange about the transaction.

In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day.

Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko," Obama said.

"It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," the senator said.

The land deal came up in a court hearing Friday that delved into Rezko's finances. Obama said he has not been approached by federal prosecutors about the transaction nor has plans to go to them about it.

Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and Obama said the Wilmette businessman raised as much as $60,000 for him during his political career. After Rezko's indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity--a total that represents what Rezko contributed to the senator's federal campaign fund.

After the controversy surfaced on Wednesday, the Sun-Times presented Obama's office with a lengthy set of questions about the land deal, Obama's relationship with Rezko and the story's impact on a potential 2008 bid for the White House.

Here are his responses:

Q: Senator, when did you first meet Tony Rezko? How did you become friends? How often would you meet with him, and when did you last speak with him?

A: I had attracted some media attention when I was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. And while I was in law school, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted me and asked whether I would be interested in being a developer. Ultimately, after discussions in which I met Mr. Rezko, I said no.

I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago.

Q:. Have you or your wife participated in any other transactions of any kind with Rezko or companies he owns? Have you or your wife ever done any legal work ever for Rezko or his companies?

A: No.

Q: Has Rezko ever given you or your family members gifts of any kind and, if so, what were they?

A: No.

Q: The seller of your house appears to be a doctor at the University of Chicago . Do you or your wife know him? If so, did either of you ever talk to him about subdividing the property? If you ever did discuss the property with him, when were those conversations?

A: We did not know him personally, though my wife worked in the same University hospital. The property was subdivided and two lots were separately listed when we first learned of it. We did not discuss the property with the owners; the sale was negotiated for us by our agent.

Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?

A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.

Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?

A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko.

Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?

A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.

Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?

A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.

We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.

Q: Why did you put the property in a trust?

A: I was advised that a trust holding would afford me some privacy, which was important to me as I would be commuting from Washington to Chicago and my family would spend some part of most weeks without me.

Q: A Nov. 21, 1999, Chicago Tribune story indicates the house you bought "sits on a quarter-acre lot and will share a driveway and entrance gate with a home next door that has not yet been built." Is this shared driveway still in the mix? Will this require further negotiations with the Rezkos?

A: The driveway is not shared with the adjacent owner. But the resident in the carriage house in the back does have an easement over it.

Q: Does it display a lack of judgment on your part to be engaging in real estate deals with Tony Rezko at a point his connections to state government had been reported to be under federal investigation?

A: I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the ten years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances.

With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.

But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.

Throughout my life, I have put faith in confronting experiences honestly and learning from them. And that is what I will do with this experience as well.

Q: Why did you not publicly disclose the transaction after Rezko got indicted?

A: At the time, it didn't strike me as relevant. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.

Q: Have you been interviewed by federal investigators about this transaction or about your relationship with Rezko? If not, do you intend to approach them?

A: I have not been interviewed by federal investigators. I have no reason to approach them.

Q: Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?

A: No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interests. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls91/pdf/910SB1017_05251999_001000C.PDF)

Q: Has this disclosure about your relationship with Rezko changed your thoughts about a White House run?

A: No. As I have said, how I can best serve is something I will think about after the 2006 election next Tuesday.

Q: Did Rezko ever discuss with you his dealings with Stuart Levine, Christopher Kelly or William Cellini or the role he was playing in shaping Gov. Blagojevich's administration?

A: No.

Q: Are the Obamas the only beneficiaries of the land trust?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you aware of any efforts by previous owners to develop what is now the Rezko lot, possibly as townhomes?

A: I was not aware of any prior effort by the seller to develop the property, but always understood the other lot was to be developed upon sale.

Q: Did Rezko have an appraisal performed for the 10-foot strip?

A: I had an appraisal conducted by Howard B. Richter & Associates on November 21, 2005.

Q: Was there a negotiation? Did he have an asking price, or did he just say, whatever you think is fair?

A: I proposed to pay on the basis of proportionality. Since the strip composed one-sixth of the entire lot, I would pay one-sixth of the purchase price of the lot. I offered this to Mr. Rezko and he accepted it.

Q: How many fundraisers has Mr. Rezko hosted for you? Were these all in his home? How much would you estimate he has raised for your campaigns?

A: He hosted one event at his home in 2003 for my U.S. Senate campaign. He participated as a member of a host committee for several other events. My best estimate was that he raised somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000.

[candice]

15. Jeez, he lied on television!

That had to have been more than 5 hours.

[stillcool]

22. There seems to be a problem...

distinguishing work from buying a house or friendship. The only work Obama did for Rezko, was done when he worked for a law firm that represented a church which partnered with Rezko in some real estate transactions
If you're interested I can find you the links.

[candice]

16. One's true character can't be disguised. Bu$h showed his true colors soon enough...

...but the gullible American public even "elected"' him in 2004. Of course, the media helped with the swift-boat ads.

[Thrill]

13. Is Rezko running for President?

[candice]

17. No, trying to stay out of jail, I believe

[Thrill]

18. Oh I see. I would only be concerned if he was running

[unc70]

19. Last I heard they revoked Rezko's bail for having hidden assets

This problem has "legs" and is about to get a lot more visibility with the trial beginning in a couple of weeks. Obama wi
ll be mentioned repeatedly in the coverage. I don't have enough hard info to be absolutely certain, but the house and lot/yard look really suspect. It looks like transactions between related parties. Obama keeps trying to divert attention away from the various Rezko messes by using carefully worded denials or statements like the one in the SC debate where he answered a question not asked. That volunteered information is now getting closely checked.

Obama reminds me of a teenager who spins some cover story for the parents, not expecting much scrutiny. A parent who is given too many details of the plans for an evening by their teenage son should become suspicious; normal responses are more like "where you going?" "Out", "What will you be doing?" "Nothing". This exchange usually occurs with the teenage son heading out the door with all due haste to avoid having to provide any additional information.

Obama raises all sorts of issues in his books. Take the admitted high school drug use. Now consider that he was a star player on the HS basketball team that won the state championship. Did they do drug tests on players in Hawaii? This may be discussed somewhere in his books that I missed.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

25. He hides assets campaign contributions and buys houses for Obama on the down low!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. Do you have anything positive for us?

[Rageneau]

21. A story like this would sink Hillary like a rock. But lucky for Obama...

the media loves him, so this issue will get very little attention -- unless he gets the nomination.
If that happens, the media won't love him anymore and will explore this shady-looking deal fully.

[rodeodance]

27. yup--the media has played the hands off him approach (for the most part)

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

23. Yes he does not count political stuff andReal estate deals as work!

Obama CLEARLY lied in the debate, No way around it!

[rodeodance]

26. “Nobody’s Hands Are Perfectly Clean in Politics”---but sure seems many Obamababies think Obama is

clean.

[Uncle Sinister]

28. I've compiled a chronological link list abt. Rezko. Mainly from Chicago Sun-Times. Enjoy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4451008

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

29. That post is informative I read it!

[Uncle Sinister]

31. thanks. mind giving it a k&r for me?

[stillcool]

30. Work...

http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/01/23/rezko-primer-iii-legal-work-on-projects-rezko-was-involved/
Rezko Primer III. Legal work on projects Rezko was involved
by ArchPundit on January 23, 2008.

Central to Hillary Clinton’s charge that Obama was representing and taking donations from a slumlords in Rezko and Allison Davis.

Davis was a name partner in the law firm Obama worked for and eventually left the firm to work with Rezko on development deals. The reason Rezko was involved in the deals at all is that he partnered with three non-profits in Chicago to build affordable housing:

Obama said he joined the firm now known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which specializes in affordable housing partnerships, in January 1993. He said he was a full-time associate until he entered the state legislature in January 1997, when he went on “of counsel” status, occasionally working on matters for the law firm.

During his time with the law firm, he said his five hours of Rezko-related work consisted of “basically filing incorporation papers” and similar tasks for not-for-profit groups that partnered with Rezmar.

Asked if he had intervened on behalf of Rezko or Rezmar with any government entity, Obama replied, “Never. No.”

In a statement released Monday, the law firm said there were four instances in which it represented the interests of not-for-profit groups in ventures where Rezmar had a partial interest: Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership II, Woodlawn Partners Limited Partnership, KRMB Limited Partnership and Woodlawn Drexel Limited Partnership.

The law firm said Obama’s role was limited to “conducting due diligence under the supervision of more senior attorneys, assisting in documentation of loans, grants and tax credit investments in which the ventures had an interest and providing general legal assistance in land acquisition.

“The firm also assisted the Rezmar Corp. in its acquisition of a general partner interest in an Illinois limited partnership, but Obama had no involvement in the transaction,” the law firm said.

The firm’s senior partner, Judson Miner, said the non-profits had been clients of the firm before Obama came aboard. “In these transactions, Barack was a young associate doing the kind of work young associates are assigned to do,” Miner said. He said Obama “was always as ethical and reliable as anyone.”


Obama works on Rezmar deals

Obama spent the next eight years serving in the Illinois Senate and continued to work for the Davis law firm.Through its partnerships, Rezmar remained a client of the firm, according to ethics statements Obama filed while a state senator.

Davis said he didn’t remember Obama working on the Rezmar projects.

“I don’t recall Barack having any involvement in real estate transactions,'’ Davis said. “Barack was a litigator. His area of focus was litigation, class-action suits.'’

But Obama did legal work on real estate deals while at Davis’ firm, according to biographical information he submitted to the Sun-Times in 1998. Obama specialized “in civil rights litigation, real estate financing, acquisition, construction and/or redevelopment of low-and moderate income housing,'’ according to his “biographical sketch.”

And he did legal work on Rezko’s deals, according to an e-mail his presidential campaign staff sent the Sun-Times on Feb. 16, in response to earlier inquiries. The staff didn’t specify which Rezmar projects Obama worked on, or his role. But it drew a distinction between working for Rezko and working on projects involving his company.

“Senator Obama did not directly represent Mr. Rezko or his firms. He did represent on a very limited basis ventures in which Mr. Rezko’s entities participated along with others,'’ according to the e-mail from Obama’s staff.

The Tribune searched multiple records to determine where Obama had done work on behalf of the entities involved:

Law firm partner Judson Miner said that, over several years, Obama did a total of five to seven hours of billable work on Rezmar-linked projects. He mainly filed incorporation papers for the non-profit groups under the supervision of more senior attorneys, Miner said.

At the Tribune’s request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004.

Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example.

In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave. As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch.

Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko’s non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company.

A separate attorney, Wayne Muldrow, represented Rezmar in the case. Muldrow, who had no connection to Obama’s firm, could not be immediately reached for comment Tuesday.

In September 1994, Central Woodlawn was ordered to arrange for an inspection. Two months later a city inspection found “full compliance” with the building code and the case was dismissed.

By the point that the degree of the problems had begun to be realized in 1997, Obama had gone to ‘of counsel status’ after winning a seat in the Illinois State Senate: