Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jbycho

Department of Justice opens criminal investigation into NY AG Letitia James

Recommended Posts

>>It’s hard to imagine a worse case than the one against James Comey—until you see the one against the attorney general of New York.

At the crux of the allegation is a 2023 power of attorney James signed enabling a third party to settle on a home on her behalf. The two-page document includes the statement, “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”

The allegation against James is twofold. First, the criminal referral letter maintains that James falsely stated that she intended to reside primarily in Norfolk. Second, Pulte argues, if she had made her home there, that wouldn’t have been legal either, because her role at the time as N.Y. attorney general required her to reside in the state she represents.

Neither part of the accusation bears scrutiny. James did not actually reside in Norfolk, nor is it clear that she ever pretended to. The referral declines to mention that the third party granted the power of attorney was James’s niece. James, according to her legal representation, assisted with the down-payment and co-signed the mortgage documents to help secure the loan, as many a parent has done for a child buying their first home.

James did incorrectly indicate on the power of attorney form that she would occupy the property as her principal residence. That may have been an error, or it may have been deliberate. But if it was deliberate, there’s no explaining why, in emails with the mortgage loan broker, she made her actual intentions capital-letters clear: “This property will NOT be my primary residence. It will be Shamice’s primary residence.” A loan application filed after the inaccurate power of attorney reflects this reality; the broker, in an email of his own, confirms it. How do prosecutors expect to prove that James made her false statement knowingly, much less that she intended to deceive a bank when, in these communications, she so evidently told the truth?

The only other supporting document Pulte refers to is a Virginia deed of trust, standardized Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form describing a borrower’s obligations under a loan. Pulte suggests that by signing the form, James reaffirmed that the Norfolk home would be her primary residence; the relevant section—labeled “Occupancy”—-does require that the borrower “occupy, establish and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days.” But the form is co-signed by James’s niece, presumably satisfying that requirement.

This highlights another problem for a potential prosecution: James may not have been applying for a loan for her primary residence, but she was applying for a loan for primary residence, for her niece. Even if she had intentionally misled a mortgage broker, the distinction between co-borrowing for a primary residence for herself and co-borrowing for a primary residence for the other borrower—as opposed to, say, the distinction between borrowing for a primary residence and for a secondary one—would almost certainly not have led to a meaningful difference in rate.

The false statement in the power of attorney, in other words, would have been unlikely to influence the bank’s decision to provide James the loan at the agreed-upon rate, and prosecutors would struggle to show that was her intent.<<

Lawfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
>>It’s hard to imagine a worse case than the one against James Comey—until you see the one against the attorney general of New York.

At the crux of the allegation is a 2023 power of attorney James signed enabling a third party to settle on a home on her behalf. The two-page document includes the statement, “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”

The allegation against James is twofold. First, the criminal referral letter maintains that James falsely stated that she intended to reside primarily in Norfolk. Second, Pulte argues, if she had made her home there, that wouldn’t have been legal either, because her role at the time as N.Y. attorney general required her to reside in the state she represents.

Neither part of the accusation bears scrutiny. James did not actually reside in Norfolk, nor is it clear that she ever pretended to. The referral declines to mention that the third party granted the power of attorney was James’s niece. James, according to her legal representation, assisted with the down-payment and co-signed the mortgage documents to help secure the loan, as many a parent has done for a child buying their first home.

James did incorrectly indicate on the power of attorney form that she would occupy the property as her principal residence. That may have been an error, or it may have been deliberate. But if it was deliberate, there’s no explaining why, in emails with the mortgage loan broker, she made her actual intentions capital-letters clear: “This property will NOT be my primary residence. It will be Shamice’s primary residence.” A loan application filed after the inaccurate power of attorney reflects this reality; the broker, in an email of his own, confirms it. How do prosecutors expect to prove that James made her false statement knowingly, much less that she intended to deceive a bank when, in these communications, she so evidently told the truth?

The only other supporting document Pulte refers to is a Virginia deed of trust, standardized Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form describing a borrower’s obligations under a loan. Pulte suggests that by signing the form, James reaffirmed that the Norfolk home would be her primary residence; the relevant section—labeled “Occupancy”—-does require that the borrower “occupy, establish and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days.” But the form is co-signed by James’s niece, presumably satisfying that requirement.

This highlights another problem for a potential prosecution: James may not have been applying for a loan for her primary residence, but she was applying for a loan for primary residence, for her niece. Even if she had intentionally misled a mortgage broker, the distinction between co-borrowing for a primary residence for herself and co-borrowing for a primary residence for the other borrower—as opposed to, say, the distinction between borrowing for a primary residence and for a secondary one—would almost certainly not have led to a meaningful difference in rate.

The false statement in the power of attorney, in other words, would have been unlikely to influence the bank’s decision to provide James the loan at the agreed-upon rate, and prosecutors would struggle to show that was her intent.<<

Lawfare.

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?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ever a human existed on earth that deserved to have a lawfare case filed against them, it is the lawfare queen, Letitia James.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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

Of course not.  That's for a jury to decide.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strike said:

Of course not.  That's for a jury to decide.  

Ok so the x posts are irrelevant, thanks for confirming 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

If ever a human existed on earth that deserved to have a lawfare case filed against them, it is the lawfare queen, Letitia James.

Fwiw I don’t think this is lawfare, which is about civil lawsuits. So for instance when Trump sued his porn star ex-mistress for $20 million to intimidate her into silence, that was lawfare.

If this is as unsubstantiated as it looks then this would be malicious prosecution, & if the judge agrees with her on that she might be able to recover money from the US government but also Halligan herself. That’s probably an additional reason no one in her office would sign the indictment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The FEC was opposed to charging Trump. Alvin Bragg played a game and you cheered. STFU you phony bastard. 

The FEC just said there wasn’t a campaign finance violation. Unfortunately the FEC has become completely neutered, I’m not sure it even functions any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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?

I’m not sure about the penalty. I don’t see it in the indictment but it wouldn’t surprise me.

>>Even then, this is not the kind of mortgage fraud case federal prosecutors normally bring. U.S. attorneys offices typically prosecute mortgage fraud cases to nab big-time swindlers attempting to trick banks into six- to eight-figure losses. If Letitia James had committed mortgage fraud, her efforts would have yielded her only thousands of dollars—tens of thousands at most.<<

Im not sure how much is saved for co-signing for a younger relative’s purchase. A few thousand? Whatever sentence would result would be commensurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m not sure about the penalty. I don’t see it in the indictment but it wouldn’t surprise me.

>>Even then, this is not the kind of mortgage fraud case federal prosecutors normally bring. U.S. attorneys offices typically prosecute mortgage fraud cases to nab big-time swindlers attempting to trick banks into six- to eight-figure losses. If Letitia James had committed mortgage fraud, her efforts would have yielded her only thousands of dollars—tens of thousands at most.<<

Im not sure how much is saved for co-signing for a younger relative’s purchase. A few thousand? Whatever sentence would result would be commensurate.

$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

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, turning a federal misdemeanor into a local felony. And the number two at the DOJ took a position as an assistant in a county DA’s office. Never been done before. Please stop, you’re making a jackass of yourself. 

That’s the Bragg case. But at any rate I was making a point about Trump suing his ex-mistress to shut her up, thats actual lawfare. 
 

The Bragg thing just raises the issue of how sordid Trump’s behavior is. And frankly no I don’t think a corporation should have a second set of books to cover hush money payments related to the personal scandals of its CEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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?

Obviously 30 years in prison is excessive.  I will gladly settle for a 450 million dollar fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Ok so the x posts are irrelevant, thanks for confirming 

Of course they're not irrelevant.  They just show that the accused believes that a person of power should not get special treatment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tree of Knowledge said:

No One is Above The Law.  

Right. Which is why James will voluntarily appear for her summons & why Halligan couldn’t get anyone in her office to sign for this thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

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?

Yes. That indictment is crystal clear. You read it correctly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Yes. That indictment is crystal clear. You read it correctly.

Sorry politics aside, what is the motive. If I go in with my niece, I co-sign the mortgage, mark it as primary, why doesn’t that mean it’s a primary residence for my niece?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sorry politics aside, what is the motive. If I go in with my niece, I co-sign the mortgage, mark it as primary, why doesn’t that mean it’s a primary residence for my niece?

You really should read the indictment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I did, I posted it further up.

Then you wouldnt be asking about events in 2023 when the indictment is for events in 2020. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

If ever a human existed on earth that deserved to have a lawfare case filed against them, it is the lawfare queen, Letitia James.

You’ve jumped the shark with this post sir. Consider what you’re implying here: you acknowledge that this is a bogus prosecution but you’re okay with it because you don’t like the accused. 

You have claimed in the past to be a true conservative which by definition means someone with reverence for the Constitution and our system of justice. Now you seem willing to toss it all overboard out of hatred and retribution. There are other posters here without integrity who are cheering this on and they don’t surprise me. But from you this is rather disappointing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals are crying about lawfare now.  Too funny. Y’all started it. And ya can’t finish it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

this is a bogus prosecution

Like paying off a whooore? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Then you wouldnt be asking about events in 2023 when the indictment is for events in 2020. 

There were three properties & three cases. Halligan likely failed on the primary case (& maybe even another involving her father) & fell back on this case. One of the counts against Comey failed too so Thats no surprise.

>>

Pulte and Martin have argued that James committed mortgage fraud because one of the documents related to a 2023 home purchased by James falsely indicated the property would be her primary residence. However, investigators have so far determined that the document -- a limited power of attorney form used by James' niece to sign documents on her behalf when James closed on the home -- was never considered by the loan officers who approved the mortgage, sources said.

Lawyers drafted the document itself for a third-party closing company based on a template that was never corrected, sources said, and every other document in James' loan file for the mortgage accurately stated that she would not reside at the home. 
 

Prosecutors have not yet been able to produce evidence that James knowingly filled out the power of attorney form incorrectly to influence the bank that issued the mortgage, said sources familiar with the investigation's findings thus far.<<

>>

A loan underwriter interviewed by investigators said that, in the process of approving the loan, she never looked at or considered the power of attorney document that incorrectly listed the home as James' primary residence, according to sources.

While Martin is examining whether another property owned by James in Virginia was inconsistently described as both "second home" and an "investment property," sources said senior DOJ leadership believes Martin would be unable to prove any allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, in part because Fannie Mae guidelines on the issue are too vague. <<

ABC

The indictment alleges James said she would use the property as a secondary home but instead rented it. I take it that’s the last case that was involved & the others must have failed, because it refers to the secondary home being used as a rental.

With Comey we found out Halligan barely cleared the threshold for indictment & failed on one of the three counts. I’m guessing when we find out the results here it will be even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HellToupee said:

Peekaboo

:banana:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-attacks-on-prosecutors-echo-long-history-of-racist-language

In a message last September on Truth Social, Trump referred to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is Black, as “Racist A.G. Letitia ‘Peekaboo’ James.” The nickname is similar to a term used to insult Black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Ok so the x posts are irrelevant, thanks for confirming 

More and more of his post fall into this category.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

There were three properties & three cases. Halligan likely failed on the primary case (& maybe even another involving her father) & fell back on this case. One of the counts against Comey failed too so Thats no surprise.

>>

Pulte and Martin have argued that James committed mortgage fraud because one of the documents related to a 2023 home purchased by James falsely indicated the property would be her primary residence. However, investigators have so far determined that the document -- a limited power of attorney form used by James' niece to sign documents on her behalf when James closed on the home -- was never considered by the loan officers who approved the mortgage, sources said.

Lawyers drafted the document itself for a third-party closing company based on a template that was never corrected, sources said, and every other document in James' loan file for the mortgage accurately stated that she would not reside at the home. 
 

Prosecutors have not yet been able to produce evidence that James knowingly filled out the power of attorney form incorrectly to influence the bank that issued the mortgage, said sources familiar with the investigation's findings thus far.<<

>>

A loan underwriter interviewed by investigators said that, in the process of approving the loan, she never looked at or considered the power of attorney document that incorrectly listed the home as James' primary residence, according to sources.

While Martin is examining whether another property owned by James in Virginia was inconsistently described as both "second home" and an "investment property," sources said senior DOJ leadership believes Martin would be unable to prove any allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, in part because Fannie Mae guidelines on the issue are too vague. <<

ABC

The indictment alleges James said she would use the property as a secondary home but instead rented it. I take it that’s the last case that was involved & the others must have failed, because it refers to the secondary home being used as a rental.

With Comey we found out Halligan barely cleared the threshold for indictment & failed on one of the three counts. I’m guessing when we find out the results here it will be even worse.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Who cares? 

If she bought a house she claimed was going to be a second residence and then used it as a rental in 2020, she is guilty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonnyutah said:

Why do you keep bringing this up? Who cares? 

If she bought a house she claimed was going to be a second residence and then used it as a rental in 2020, she is guilty. 

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.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonnyutah said:

Then you wouldnt be asking about events in 2023 when the indictment is for events in 2020. 

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.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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 homes as long as you use it for 1 day.

Not if you have a signed second home rider for the lower rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Not if you have a signed second home rider for the lower rate. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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

If you have a signed second home rider it is literally an agreement that you will not rent out the house. 

In exchange for agreeing to this, you get a better mortgage rate. 

According to the indictment, she signed a second home rider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

If you have a signed second home rider it is literally an agreement that you will not rent out the house. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonnyutah said:

Why do you keep bringing this up? Who cares? 

If she bought a house she claimed was going to be a second residence and then used it as a rental in 2020, she is guilty. 

I’m bringing it up because a conviction requires motive & intent, & the same underlying set of facts concern two other transactions that appear to have already been shut down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

If you have a signed second home rider it is literally an agreement that you will not rent out the house. 

In exchange for agreeing to this, you get a better mortgage rate. 

According to the indictment, she signed a second home rider. 

So funny. You really really want her to be guilty of a crime so that you can defend your idiot hero President. 

Sorry there is no crime here. Either this will be laughed out of court or she will be acquitted after a sham trial just like Comey. Either way the only result is that she is about to become a very wealthy woman at our expense. Congrats? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

So funny. You really really want her to be guilty of a crime so that you can defend your idiot hero President. 

😆

President Trump won and you lost. This is excellent for this country. :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×