Department of Justice opens criminal investigation into NY AG Letitia James

[jonnyutah 509]

13 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Maybe I missed but I don’t think anyone here was saying she used this house as an airbnb.  Nonetheless, this one looks to be at Lafayette and Perrone.

https://www.airbnb.com/l/QuMjxp1r
 

 

 

Yes. You missed it. 

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

46 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Lol.

Dude. Look where the house is. You think she was ever planning on living there at all? 

As far as the airbnb talk thats all ridiculous too. 

There isnt a single airbnb in the vicinity of this place. They are all on the coast. 

 

Thanks, no I haven’t looked. I saw the complaint refers to Norfolk. Went through there once, seemed nice that whole area. But I’ll take a look.

[jonnyutah 509]

24 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

It’s on the same street as a listed previous address of her niece that she later bought the other house for.   For that reason, very reasonable to believe that she stayed there.

Stayed with her niece once. All requirements satisfied! 

You guys are a riot today. 

[TimHauck 3,222]

44 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Stayed with her niece once. All requirements satisfied! 

You guys are a riot today. 

That combined with if she rented it out for less than 6 months of the first year, then yup pretty sure she did.

[jonnyutah 509]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That combined with if she rented it out for less than 6 months of the first year, then yup pretty sure she did.

Also if she stored her pet unicorn in the garage. 

 

[TimHauck 3,222]

1 hour ago, jonnyutah said:

Yes. You missed it. 

I saw Saints talk about scenarios with Airbnb, I didn’t think he was necessarily saying that’s what he thought James did with the property. 

Any comment on the fact that there is an Airbnb listing at literally the exact intersection you named?
 

[TimHauck 3,222]

2 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Also if she stored her pet unicorn in the garage. 

 

What, do you think it’s definite that she rented it out for more than six months of the first year that she owned it? If it was a POS, she may have had to fix it up first anyway, which would still qualify as it being available for her personal use.

[jonnyutah 509]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I saw Saints talk about scenarios with Airbnb, I didn’t think he was necessarily saying that’s what he thought James did with the property. 

Any comment on the fact that there is an Airbnb listing at literally the exact intersection you named?
 

Congrats. You found an airbnb in that area.

"This home is in the bottom 10% of eligible listings based on ratings, reviews, and reliability"

 

[jonnyutah 509]

18 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

What, do you think it’s definite that she rented it out for more than six months of the first year that she owned it? If it was a POS, she may have had to fix it up first anyway, which would still qualify as it being available for her personal use.

Crazy that she didnt declare any personal use days. 

[TimHauck 3,222]

2 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Crazy that she didnt declare any personal use days. 

For the first year?  Link?  That is not in the indictment.

[jonnyutah 509]

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore?

I mean according to you we cant say that based on the indictment she didn't use it for personal use, even though it says that.

But you can just come up with all these different scenarios, lol?

I mean she fixed it up now. Good god. 

[jonnyutah 509]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

For the first year?  Link?  That is not in the indictment.

The indictment says zero personal use days declared and that there was no actual personal use.

I mean what are they supposed to do write every single date and make sure to specify that on that date there was no personal use?

"Zero personal use days" and "no actual personal use" are incredibly definitive terms.

Now possibly they are lying and the grand jury believed them, but also possible that James rented the house to a pimp and he used it as a brothel. 

[TimHauck 3,222]

41 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore?

I mean according to you we cant say that based on the indictment she didn't use it for personal use, even though it says that.

But you can just come up with all these different scenarios, lol?

I mean she fixed it up now. Good god. 

The indictment doesn’t say she “never” used it for personal use, it said she filed tax “form(s)” reporting zero personal use days.   It does not say which year or years that she filed those forms saying that.

[TimHauck 3,222]

I’m not sure Halligan realizes the thing about the first year, as she says the “scheme” went through at least January 2024 

[jonnyutah 509]

57 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The indictment doesn’t say she “never” used it for personal use, it said she filed tax “form(s)” reporting zero personal use days.   It does not say which year or years that she filed those forms saying that.

It says "no intended or actual personal occupancy or use"

Which everybody but sho nuff would agree means the same thing (if true of course).

[jonnyutah 509]

Just now, jonnyutah said:

It says "no intended or actual personal occupancy or use"

Which everybody but sho nuff would agree means the same thing (if true of course).

"But it doesnt specify the exact dates for no intended or actual!!!!"

-sho nuff

[Strike 5,926]

22 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

It says "no intended or actual personal occupancy or use"

Which everybody but sho nuff would agree means the same thing (if true of course).

This is what you get from RainHauck.  He did the same thing with the illegal immigrant school superintendent.  He just tries to make up any scenario to defend these people and then says he wasn't defending them.