TimHauck

Yup. I’ve seen people bring up “TaX fRAuD!!” but she’s not being charged with tax fraud.

Because you said you “gotta say there’s more.” If you don’t want to take my word for it that there’s not, you can find out for sure by reading it.

Another lie because the main reason I started posting here was to discuss a topic that shouldn’t have been political, and I specifically tried to keep politics out of it. If you enjoy talking about financial issues, I think it would be in your best interest to read the indictment. It’s pretty short. But again, you are welcome to remain uninformed.

Liar. I did not vigorously defend him, I said it was possible he was a fraudster very early on. For someone that “doesn’t care” about this topic, you’ve typed a lot of words about it this morning. But you are welcome to be uninformed, it’s a free country, for now.

Then read the indictment. You could have done that in less time than it’s taken you to respond multiple times here. The part talking about the actual allegations is only 3 pages long, double spaced. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26184192-james-indictment/

I was looking into them, and was told by multiple lenders that I could call it a second home as long as I used it myself for one day, and could rent it out the rest. But as you alluded to elsewhere, even if you don’t, I think you can make an argument about if you intended to do so then something changed.

That’s all there is, at least for this current indictment

It says she indicated zero personal use days on a tax form or forms. It does not say what year or years that was. According to the second home rider, all that matters is the first year.

Except we don’t know if she actually used it as she said she would, at least in the first year which is all that matters here

Colombian President says a recent boat blown up was Colombian with Colombian citizens. He says the war isn’t against drugs, it’s a war for oil. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89dz920p0do?xtor=AL-71-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_id=8F784828-A4F0-11F0-AA5D-DE6CF6DB551C&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_format=link&at_medium=social&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow

Link?

Yes to your first question. Pretty sure the answer to your second question is you can, but @jonnyutah seems to think you can’t. But, I believe you do have to at least “use” the property for at least 1 day in the year. And I’m also pretty sure all of those rules (same with the Lisa Cook thing), at least as it relates to mortgage fraud, only apply to the first year of ownership.

Was that post from Paul already shared in here?

Your daddy

She didn’t miss though. She won, remember? Even the recent appeal did not overturn the verdict.

And the WH held a meeting with a bunch of x sh1tposters because one of them assaulted a woman and stole someone else’s flag.

The indictment does not say she declared zero personal use days in total, in fact it says she filed tax “form(s)” that said that, implying that it’s possible it was only one year that she declared that. Watch out for that careful wording, you know that. It’s technically possible she did, but nothing is clear from this indictment. Looks like long-term rentals are typically defined as 30 days or more, so yes it is absolutely possible for it to be a long term rental and still have been primarily for personal use (which again was only even a requirement for the first year). Better quit while you’re behind.

Maduro claims he stopped a “false flag” at US embassy in Caracas https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/venezuela-maduro-says-us-embassy-060141855.html

Link? Pretty sure this is the form (as some of the language in the indictment seems to be copied from this): https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/27361/display It specifically says it can be rented out. While it calls out “short term rentals,” it does not prohibit long term rentals, although it does say the use needs to be “primarily” for the owner’s personal use…for at least one year (I know I’ve called out the one year thing in the Lisa Cook case as well). Notably, the indictment does not specify when the home was first rented out.

According to this site - https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/shamice-hairston_id_G-6882185738538593962 A home on the same street as the one in the indictment is listed as a previous address for James’s niece. If true, that would suggest James may have actually used the house.

Not what? Your claim is it can’t be rented out at all?

I did not realize there were 2 different homes in Norfolk in question here. So the niece thing was 2023, but the one they’re indicting her for was 2020, got it. So disregard my comment about visiting her niece, but the point still stands about a house possibly being able to be considered a second home as long as you use it for 1 day.

Not necessarily. “Second homes” can be rented out. I was actually looking into loans for a second property recently and had lenders tell me that you can call it a second home as long as you use it for 1 day a year. So if she visited her niece and stayed at the home, she may have satisfied the definition of second home.

Fair. But isn’t part of the OBBB also to penalize states that use their own funding for illegals? Do you agree with that?