TimHauck

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?

Page 7 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-06/Wyden-Pallone-Neal_Letter_6-4-25.pdf

$18,933 according to the indictment. DOJ site says possible penalty of up to 30 years and $1 million penalty per count (but states that actual sentences are typically less). https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/new-york-state-attorney-general-indicted

Ok so the x posts are irrelevant, thanks for confirming

lol if true https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jesse-watters-antifa-mexican-mafia-internet-rumor-b2841869.html

Reading the indictment, I thought the claim seems to be that she intended for it to be a “second home,” and that she “rented it” to her niece which supposedly isn’t allowed for second homes. To me it looks like they’re giving up on the “she claimed it was a primary residence!” thing. Did I read correctly that the penalty for what she’s accused of is up to 30 years in prison?

Why are these posts relevant? Are you assuming she’s guilty before the case is heard by a jury of her peers?

Asking if there are any updates on the investigation is talking about pee?

TBD on what caused it.

Not if it’s true that she repeatedly said it wasn’t going to be her primary residence.

He’s mad that people call him peefoam so has to add pee to everyone else’s name as payback