WHAT LOWELL’S MOTION REVEALS

His 50-page motion to dismiss the federal indictment against Letitia James, filed last Friday, makes a sophisticated legal argument about vindictive prosecution.

But buried in the legal analysis are factual misrepresentations about the evidence.

Here’s what’s at stake for Judge Robert Payne Walker: If powerful officials can cry “vindictive prosecution” and escape accountability whenever a political opponent investigates them—regardless of how overwhelming the documentary evidence—then vindictive prosecution becomes a “get out of jail free” card for those who need it most. Judge Walker’s ruling will set precedent for whether evidence matters when constitutional process claims are raised.

The paradox Lowell creates for Judge Walker: Either Trump directed this prosecution (vindictive), OR career prosecutors made all these alleged errors independently (incompetence). If it’s vindictive, that’s a constitutional problem. If it’s incompetent, that’s a prosecutorial problem. But neither option erases 40 years of documentary evidence sitting in public records.

Think about it this way: Imagine a defendant saying “Yes, Judge Walker, I did murder that person, but the prosecution is vindictive because the President hates me.” The existence of political motivation doesn’t erase the documentary evidence. If it did, every powerful person prosecuted by a political opponent would be immune from accountability.

What this article does:

To address the pattern evidence across multiple properties, Lowell made specific factual claims about what the investigation found. This article systematically rebuts each factual claim with public records.

The superseding indictment question: Evidence for additional charges has existed in public records since February 2025 when I began documenting it. Lowell’s motion now consolidates that evidence in one judicial filing. Whether his constitutional arguments succeed or fail, the documentary evidence of fraud on multiple properties remains.

---

THE INVESTIGATION THAT STARTED BEFORE TRUMP

February 8, 2025: I publish “Beyond Campaign Spending: Letitia James’ Puzzling Property Portfolio Raises New Questions” – my first comprehensive investigation into James’s financial disclosures to New York State.

3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia:

• Property value disclosed: $100,000-$150,000
• Mortgages disclosed: $250,000-$400,000
• Loan-to-value ratio: 167% to 400%

No legitimate lender issues loans at 250%+ of property value. This wasn’t a disclosure error—it was proof of systematic fraud.

I ordered an independent title report. The mortgages James disclosed (Freedom, National) didn’t exist. The mortgage that existed (OVM Financial, $109,600) was never disclosed.

Timeline of Investigation:

• February 13, 2025: I publish “Discrepancies in AG Letitia James’ Financial Disclosures” – documenting the mathematical impossibility
• March 3, 2025: I publish “Exposing a Decade of Letitia James’ Financial Misreporting” – Brooklyn and Peronne Ave properties
• March 18, 2025: Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert investigates Brooklyn property (4 vs 5 units on HAMP loan). I publish “Handwritten Mortgage Modifications“
• March 21, 2025: I publish “Building Permits Raise Serious Questions” – Trump shares it same day
• April 1, 2025: I publish “Sterling Street Principal Residence” investigation
• April 10, 2025: Trump shares Sterling Street investigation
• April 14, 2025: FHFA criminal referral to DOJ citing our public records documentation

Key points:

• Did Trump react to our forensic accounting work? Yes
• Did we follow Trump’s instructions? No. We followed the documents—I started February 8, Gilbert started March 18, both working independently from public records
• Did the DOJ investigation become vindictive prosecution? Judge Walker will decide
• Do the documents we found starting February 8, 2025 prove 40 years of mortgage fraud? Yes—and that’s what this article proves

The strength of the evidence is irrelevant to claims of vindictive prosecution, but it’s everything for what happens next.

---

WHAT THE CURRENT INDICTMENT CHARGES

Before examining Lowell’s claims, let’s establish what the federal grand jury actually charged:

On October 9, 2025, Letitia James was indicted on two federal counts related to one property:

3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia

• Purchased: August 17, 2020 for $137,000
• Financed: $109,600 mortgage from OVM Financial
• Interest rate: 3.000% (second home rate)

The Charges:

• Count One: Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) – Maximum 30 years
• Count Two: False Statements to a Financial Institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014) – Maximum 30 years

The Core Allegation: James signed a Second Home Rider under penalty of perjury on August 17, 2020, swearing she would “occupy and use” the Norfolk property as her second home and maintain “exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property.” She never did. Her grandniece Nakia Thompson and family moved in that same month and have lived there ever since.

According to the indictment, James made contradictory sworn statements to three different entities:

• Paragraph 6: Told the bank she would “occupy and use the Property as Borrower’s second home”
• Paragraph 9: Told her insurance company the property was “owner-occupied non-seasonal use”
• Paragraph 10: Filed Schedule E tax forms reporting “zero personal use days” and treating it as “rental real estate”
• The benefit obtained: $18,933 (per indictment) by getting second home financing (3.000% rate) instead of investment property rates (3.815%).

That’s the current federal case: One property. Norfolk, Virginia. Three contradictory sworn statements about how she used it.

---

LOWELL’S MOTION HAS TWO TRACKS – UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE

Before diving into the evidence, it’s critical to understand how Lowell structures his 50-page motion. He argues on two separate tracks:

Track One: Legal/Constitutional Arguments

Claims: Vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution, constitutional violations

Strategy: To prove Trump directed vindictive prosecution, Lowell references the BROADER investigation. He:

• Attaches the FHFA criminal referral as Exhibit F (detailing Brooklyn, Sterling, and Queens properties)
• Quotes Trump’s statements about Brooklyn and Queens to prove political motivation
• Argues the investigation was improper “cherry-picking” across multiple properties spanning 40 years
• Claims prosecutors investigated properties “none of which was the Peronne Property at issue in the indictment”

What this means: To argue vindictiveness, Lowell documented the other properties in his motion. The evidence was already in public records, but now it’s consolidated in one judicial filing.

Track Two: Factual Claims (Embedded in Legal Arguments)

Focus: Specifically about the Peronne Avenue property (the only property currently charged)

Lowell’s factual claims about Peronne Ave (embedded within his constitutional arguments):

• Peronne: Investigation found only $800 in benefits
• Peronne: Federal guidelines don’t clearly define occupancy requirements
• Peronne: Career prosecutors concluded there was no probable cause
• Peronne: Prosecutors found no rent beyond $1,350
• General: Investigation was based on unreliable media reports

These aren’t separate legal arguments—they’re factual assertions embedded in Lowell’s constitutional claims. And every single one about Peronne Avenue is provably false.

Why This Distinction Matters:

Track One (Constitutional): Judge Walker decides. This article doesn’t address constitutional law—that’s for the court. But Judge Walker should know: even if he finds vindictive prosecution, that ruling doesn’t erase the evidence or prevent superseding charges. His decision on process doesn’t change what the documents prove about substance.

Track Two (Factual claims): Documentary evidence decides. Lowell makes specific factual assertions about what the investigation found regarding Peronne Avenue. Public records prove every assertion is false—regardless of how Judge Walker rules on constitutional questions.

This article focuses on Track Two—the factual claims embedded in Lowell’s legal arguments—because those are provable or disprovable by documents. Judge Walker’s ruling on vindictive prosecution won’t change what’s in the public records.

---

THE EVIDENCE: PERONNE AVENUE

CRITICAL NOTE: Lowell’s motion references allegations across FOUR DIFFERENT PROPERTIES spanning 40+ years. Each property has its own distinct fraud scheme. Some media outlets (like LegalEagle) conflated mortgages from different states on different properties. We address each property separately.

Why Forensic Evidence Is Legally Sufficient:

Defense lawyers look for: Ambiguity, alternative explanations, reasonable doubt, constitutional violations, procedural grounds for dismissal

Forensic accountants look for: Patterns, mathematical impossibilities, contradictory sworn statements, systematic misrepresentations, documentary trails

United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) – Supreme Court held that under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, prosecutors need NOT prove bank relied on the statement or that it was material. The crime was complete when James signed false declarations intended to influence lenders.

United States v. Muhammad, No. 17-30193 (9th Cir. 2018) – DOJ successfully prosecuted for false FHA occupancy declarations based on contradictory statements. James’s case is even stronger: written contradictions 15 days apart, government attorney witnesses, 20-year pattern across multiple properties, and 40+ years of documentary evidence.

Peronne Avenue: The Charged Property

The Current Indictment: On October 9, 2025, Letitia James was indicted on two federal counts related to one property:

3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia

• Purchased: August 17, 2020 for $137,000
• Financed: $109,600 mortgage from OVM Financial
• Interest rate: 3.000% (second home rate)

Count One: Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) – Maximum 30 years

Count Two: False Statements to a Financial Institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014) – Maximum 30 years

The Core Allegation: James signed a Second Home Rider under penalty of perjury swearing she would “occupy and use” the Norfolk property as her second home. She never did. Her grandniece Nakia Thompson and family moved in that same month and have lived there ever since.

Lowell’s Three Main Claims About Peronne Avenue:

Lowell’s motion makes three specific factual claims about the Peronne Avenue property to minimize the charges:

• Claim #1: Investigation found only $800 in benefits
• Claim #2: James collected only $1,350 in rent
• Claim #3: Federal guidelines don’t clearly define occupancy requirements

All three claims are provably false.

Lowell’s Claim #1: “Only $800 in Benefits” – THE MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

From Lowell’s Motion (Page 13): “prosecutors ‘concluded that any financial benefit derived from her allegedly falsified mortgage would have amounted to approximately $800 in the year she purchased the home’”

Why This Is False: The federal indictment (Paragraph 8) explicitly calculates James obtained “$18,933 in benefits through false pretenses” for the Norfolk property alone—not $800.

But here’s what led me to discover the larger fraud pattern:

In February 2025, I was analyzing James’s 2023 financial disclosure statement when I found a mathematical impossibility:

3121 Peronne Avenue on 2023 FDS:

• Property value disclosed: $100,000-$150,000
• Freedom Mortgage disclosed: $150,000 to under $250,000
• National Mortgage disclosed: $100,000 to under $150,000
• Total mortgages disclosed: $250,000 to $400,000

Loan-to-value ratio: 167% to 400%

This is mathematically impossible under standard lending practices. Standard lending typically limits total financing to 80-90% of property value. Here, the mortgages potentially exceeded 250% of the property’s value.

I immediately ordered an independent title report. The February 2025 title search revealed:

✓ OVM Financial mortgage exists: $109,600, dated August 17, 2020 ✗ Freedom Mortgage: Does not exist in property records ✗ National Mortgage: Does not exist in property records

The Pattern Across Five Years:

• 2020-2022 FDS: Property value $100K-$150K, NO mortgages reported (OVM exists but hidden)
• 2023-2024 FDS: Property value $100K-$150K, TWO mortgages suddenly appear that don’t exist

She’s reporting phantom mortgages while hiding the real one.

Lowell’s Claim #2: “Only $1,350 in Rent” – THE INESCAPABLE TRAP

From Lowell’s Motion (Page 13): “prosecutors found no record of James collecting rent from her niece beyond $1,350 that James reported on her 2020 tax return, which was said to cover the cost of utilities”

Critical Distinction: Lowell is referring to NET RENTAL INCOME (after expenses). The indictment refers to GROSS RENTS RECEIVED (before expenses). These are completely different numbers on Schedule E.

The Indictment (Paragraph 10) states: “JAMES filed Schedule E tax form(s), under penalties of perjury, treating the Peronne Property as rental real estate, reporting fair rental days, zero personal use days, thousands of dollars in rents received, and claiming deductions for expenses relating to the property.”

How Schedule E Works:

• Line 3: Gross Rents Received (what tenants actually paid)

• Lines 5-19: Deductions (mortgage interest, taxes, insurance, repairs, depreciation, etc.)

• Line 21: Net Rental Income (gross rents minus all deductions)

The Trap Lowell Walked Into:

If James reported $1,350 NET income after deductions, that means she reported THOUSANDS in gross rents received (Line 3), then deducted mortgage interest, property taxes, insurance, utilities, etc., leaving only $1,350 net.

But Thompson testified she paid NO rent.

And The New York Times reported Thompson “did not pay rent.”

The Forensic Problem:

What Thompson Actually Paid:	Then James Committed:
$0 (Thompson: “no rent paid”)	TAX FRAUD (falsely reported thousands in gross rents received on Schedule E, Line 3, and took fraudulent deductions on expenses for a property generating no income) FALSE STATEMENT to NY State (rental income on FDS) MORTGAGE FRAUD (family occupied full-time during mandatory personal use year)
$1,350 total for year	TAX FRAUD ($1,350/year = $112/month for full-time occupancy is below-market, making it family accommodation, not rental. IRS requires reporting ALL days as personal use days, but James reported zero) MORTGAGE FRAUD (Thompson occupied full-time = violated Second Home Rider requiring 182.5+ days personal use)
Enough to generate $1,350 net after all deductions (likely $3,000-$5,000+ gross)	MORTGAGE FRAUD (collecting market rent = full-time rental property, not second home) SECOND HOME RIDER VIOLATION (property must be available primarily for personal use, not rented)

Every scenario proves federal crimes.

The IRS Problem: Under IRS rules, when family members occupy a property at below-market rates, EVERY day of their occupancy counts as the owner’s “personal use day.” James reported “zero personal use days” for 2020 when Thompson occupied the property full-time starting August 2020. That’s perjury under 26 U.S.C. § 7206.

Lowell’s Claim #3: “No Clear Definition” – THE EXPLICIT STANDARD

From Lowell’s Motion (Page 13): “[P]rosecutors ‘also expressed concern that the case could likely not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because federal mortgage guidelines for a second home do not clearly define occupancy’”

Why This Is Objectively False:

The Fannie Mae Selling Guide (August 5, 2020)—in effect when James signed her loan—explicitly defines second home requirements:

From the August 2020 Fannie Mae Selling Guide:

“Second Home Properties must:

– be occupied by the borrower for some portion of the year

– not be rental property or a timeshare arrangement

– the borrower must have exclusive control over the property”

From Freddie Mac Bulletin 2019-7 (April 3, 2019)—which created the Second Home Rider James signed:

“The Borrower keeps the property securing the second home Mortgage available primarily (i.e., more than half of the calendar year) as a residence for the Borrower’s personal use and enjoyment”

“Available primarily” = more than half of the calendar year = 182.5+ days minimum

This isn’t ambiguous. It’s mathematics.

What James Actually Did During the Mandatory First Year (August 2020-August 2021):

Requirement	Standard	James’s Compliance	Evidence
“Available primarily”	182.5+ days required	0 days	2020 & 2021 Schedule E: “zero personal use days”
“Not be rental property”	Can’t classify as rental	Classified as investment/rental property	2020 & 2021 Schedule E: “rental real estate” with deductions for investment property expenses
“Exclusive control”	James controls occupancy	Thompson occupied full-time	NYT: “lived there ever since [2020]”

Critical Point: The Second Home Rider required James to treat the property as her second home during the mandatory first year (2020-2021). Instead, she filed Schedule E forms for tax years 2020 and 2021 explicitly classifying it as “rental real estate” / investment property – the exact opposite of what the mortgage contract required.

The Contradictory Statements:

The indictment reveals that Letitia James made three contradictory sworn statements about the Peronne property:

• To the bank (Paragraph 6): “second home” for personal use
• To insurance company (Paragraph 9): “owner-occupied non-seasonal use”
• To the IRS (Paragraph 10): “rental real estate” with “zero personal use days”

All three statements cannot simultaneously be true. And that’s just what’s charged in the current indictment.

But the Financial Disclosure Statements to NY State reveal a fourth contradictory classification: James reported the property as “Investment” (2020-2024 FDS) while simultaneously swearing to the bank it was a “second home.” This systematic misrepresentation is documented in the Financial Disclosure Shell Game section below.

Why Under Wells This Is Sufficient for Conviction:

United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) – Supreme Court held that under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, prosecutors need NOT prove:

• Bank actually relied on the statement
• Statement was material to loan approval
• Statement influenced the bank’s decision

What they DO need: False statement made + Intended to influence financial institution

The Court held: “The phrase ‘for the purpose of influencing’ covers conduct intended to influence even if the influence is not achieved.”

The crime was complete the moment James signed false declarations intended to influence the lender.

---

THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SHELL GAME LOWELL WON’T MENTION

What Lowell Completely Ignores:

The motion to dismiss never addresses the most damning evidence: James’s systematic violation of New York financial disclosure laws.

The Evidence Lowell Doesn’t Want to Discuss:

2020-2024 Financial Disclosure Statements to NY State:

• Property classification: “Investment”
• Mortgage disclosure: NONE (the $109,600 OVM Financial mortgage is missing)
• Income disclosure: $0 (after reporting $1,350 in 2020)

The Mathematical Impossibility Lowell Ignores:

2023 Financial Disclosure:

• Property value: $100,000-$150,000
• Disclosed mortgages:

– Freedom Mortgage: $150,000-$250,000 – National Mortgage: $100,000-$150,000

• Total mortgages: $250,000-$400,000
• Loan-to-value ratio: 167% to 400%

This is mathematically impossible under standard lending practices.

Property Records Show:

• Freedom Mortgage: Doesn’t exist for this property
• National Mortgage: Doesn’t exist for this property
• OVM Financial ($109,600): Never disclosed from 2020-2024

James disclosed phantom mortgages that don’t exist while hiding a real mortgage that does exist.

That’s not a reporting error. That’s systematic concealment under penalty of perjury.

Five Years of False Statements Filed Electronically:

• 2020 FDS: OVM mortgage not disclosed
• 2021 FDS: OVM mortgage not disclosed
• 2022 FDS: OVM mortgage not disclosed
• 2023 FDS: OVM mortgage not disclosed + phantom mortgages disclosed
• 2024 FDS: OVM mortgage not disclosed + phantom mortgages disclosed

Each false disclosure = potential wire fraud charge (18 U.S.C. § 1343 – electronic filing uses interstate wires)

Maximum: 20 years per count x 5 years = 100 years

Why Lowell Doesn’t Mention This:

Because there’s no defense. The documents speak for themselves:

• Financial disclosures are public records
• Mortgage records are public records
• The mortgages she disclosed don’t exist
• The mortgage that exists was never disclosed
• This pattern spans five consecutive years

You can’t argue vindictive prosecution made the documents contradict each other.

---

THE AUGUST 2, 2023 EMAIL LOWELL CAN’T EXPLAIN

The Evidence That Destroys Every Defense:

From my April 1, 2025 investigation:

On August 2, 2023, Letitia James sent an email to her mortgage broker about the Sterling Street property she was purchasing:

James’s email:

“This property WILL NOT be my primary residence. I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”

The very next day (August 3, 2023):

Her broker confirmed the loan was locked as a “primary residence product”

Two weeks later (August 17, 2023):

James signed a sworn declaration—witnessed by two of her own government employees—stating the Sterling Street property would be her “principal residence”

This is written confession of intent to commit fraud.

The Timeline:

Between August 2 and August 17, 2023, James made several attempts to get the Sterling Street mortgage approved, but the application kept getting bounced out of the automated underwriting system.

• August 2: “WILL NOT be my primary residence” email sent
• August 3: Loan locked as “primary residence product”
• August 2-17: Multiple submission attempts, repeated bounces from underwriting system
• August 17: Signed “principal residence” declaration under penalty of perjury (with residency declaration filed with the mortgage)
• August 30-31: Purchase completed

This makes it worse, not better.

If the application bounced multiple times between August 2 and August 17, James had multiple opportunities to correct the “mistake” before signing the final declaration. Instead, she signed a sworn statement declaring the opposite of what she had written 15 days earlier.

And timing matters: James made this declaration approximately one month before the Trump civil fraud trial began (October 2023)—while she was actively prosecuting him for allegedly misrepresenting property values and usage.

The residency declaration was filed with the mortgage and has never been corrected.

Lowell’s Motion Doesn’t Mention This Email.

Why? Because there’s no innocent explanation.

This isn’t about Trump’s revenge. This isn’t about selective prosecution. This is about James writing down her intent to deceive the bank, then signing sworn declarations that directly contradict what she told her broker.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, the crime was complete the moment she signed the false declaration.

---

WHY THE PATTERN MATTERS

The obvious question: If the indictment only charges Peronne Avenue, why discuss Brooklyn, Sterling, and Queens?

Three reasons:

1. Lowell Raised It First

Lowell’s motion (Page 10) claims the investigation “cherry-picked documents to claim fraud over three properties—one even going back to 1983—none of which was the Peronne Property at issue in the indictment.”

We’re responding to HIS claim that examining the pattern was improper. And proving he lied—Peronne IS explicitly in the FHFA criminal referral.

2. Pattern Evidence Proves Intent

Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) allows evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” to prove intent, knowledge, plan, and absence of mistake.

Why this matters: When someone claims “honest mistake” but made the same “mistake” 10+ times over 20 years with consistent financial benefit, that defense collapses.

The Brooklyn pattern (2001-2021) proves James knew how to manipulate property classifications for financial benefit. The Peronne fraud fits an established criminal methodology spanning 40 years.

3. Timeline Destroys Political Motive

Lowell’s argument: This is Trump’s revenge.

Timeline problem:

• Queens fraud: 1982-1983 (father listed as husband – Reagan administration)
• Brooklyn fraud: Began 2001 (Trump private citizen)
• Federal HAMP fraud: 2011 (Trump still not in politics)
• James becomes AG: 2019 (after decades of fraud)
• Trump allegedly promises revenge: 2019-2025 (fraud predates conflict by 37+ years)

You can’t blame political persecution for a criminal pattern that started during the Reagan administration and continued through five presidencies (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama) before Trump even entered politics. (Click on image below to view it in a larger size.)

What We’re NOT Arguing

❌ “James should be charged for all these properties” ❌ “The indictment should have included Brooklyn” ❌ “The other properties are separate crimes in this case”

We’re not prosecutors. We’re not deciding what to charge.

What We ARE Arguing

✅ Pattern evidence is legally relevant and admissible ✅ Lowell raised the pattern issue himself ✅ The pattern rebuts “innocent mistake” defense ✅ The pattern proves systematic fraud, not political targeting

The Bank Robbery Analogy

Think of it this way:

Scenario: Bank robber caught on surveillance

• Indicted for: October 15, 2025 robbery of First National Bank
• Defense argument: “The video is grainy, could be anyone, my client was confused about banking procedures”
• Prosecution response: “Here are 10 other bank robberies over 20 years using identical methodology, same tools, same MO”

Question: Should the prosecutor be allowed to present those other robberies?

Answer: Yes—not to charge 10 more crimes, but to prove the October 15 robbery wasn’t a “mistake” or “confusion.”

Same principle here:

• Brooklyn/HAMP/Sterling aren’t charged in this indictment
• But they prove Peronne wasn’t an “honest mistake about mortgage requirements”
• They show James has sophisticated fraud methodology spanning 40 years
• They establish this is systematic criminal conduct, not isolated error

This is standard prosecutorial practice—and it’s exactly why Lowell wants to exclude it.

✅ Lowell mischaracterized the investigation as “cherry-picking” ✅ The timeline proves fraud predates political motive ✅ The scope proves this isn’t trivial ✅ The sophistication proves this isn’t a mistake

The other properties aren’t separate crimes to charge in this indictment—they’re evidence proving Peronne was no mistake.

---

THE BROOKLYN PROPERTY LOWELL HOPES YOU’LL FORGET

20 Years of Systematic Misrepresentations:

The Norfolk indictment is just the latest chapter. The pattern started decades earlier.

296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn:

• Certificate of Occupancy: Legal 5-unit building
• Physical evidence: 6 electric meters, 5 doorbells
• Every mortgage document (2001-2021): Consistently reported as 1-4 units

The Complete Timeline of False Statements:

Date	Lender	Units Reported	Actual Units
March 30, 2001	Chase	“One or Two Family”	5 units
August 29, 2003	MERS	“4 Family Dwelling”	5 units
July 1, 2005	MERS	“4 Family”	5 units
October 26, 2006	American General	“1–3 Family”	5 units
May 25, 2007	American General	“1–2 Family Residence”	5 units
August 23, 2011	US Bank	“4 Fam.” (handwritten)	5 units
January 26, 2015	Municipal Credit Union	“4 Family”	5 units
October 26, 2017	Wells Fargo	“4 Family”	5 units
August 23, 2019	Citibank	“4 Family”	5 units
June 21, 2021	Citizens Bank	“1 or 2 Family Residence”	5 units

10+ false statements across 20 years to different federal lenders.

Each false statement enabled James to:

• Obtain residential loan terms (lower rates)
• Avoid commercial property requirements
• Qualify for federal programs (HAMP)

The Federal HAMP Fraud (2011):

James obtained federal mortgage modification assistance—a program explicitly excluding buildings with 5+ units.

The handwritten modifications on the HAMP agreement:

• “4 fam” hastily written in one corner
• Contradictory note: “…not more than 6 residential units…”

This isn’t mortgage fraud—it’s defrauding a federal relief program intended for struggling homeowners.

Why This Matters:

Lowell’s motion argues this is about Trump’s political revenge. But the Queens property fraud started in 1982—long before Trump’s presidency, long before James became AG.

You can’t blame Trump for fraud that began when Ronald Reagan was president.

---

THE 1983 FRAUD THAT STARTED IT ALL

The Earliest Evidence of Criminal Methodology:

Lowell’s motion (Page 10) acknowledges the investigation examined fraud “going back to 1983″—42 years ago. Public records document this early pattern.

What Happened:

Records show James and her father co-signed a mortgage document identifying themselves as “husband and wife” rather than “father and daughter.”

Why This Matters:

This isn’t a typo. Relationship status affects:

• Loan terms and qualification
• Legal rights and obligations
• Inheritance and estate planning
• Insurance coverage

Misrepresenting the relationship on a federally-insured mortgage document is fraud—regardless of when it occurred.

The Pattern This Establishes:

James has been making false statements on federal mortgage documents for over 40 years.

This isn’t:

• An honest mistake
• A one-time error
• Political persecution
• Trump’s revenge

This is a 40-year criminal enterprise.

---

WHAT LOWELL’S MOTION DOCUMENTS

Lowell’s strategic dilemma:

To argue vindictive prosecution, Lowell had to explain why prosecutors investigated properties beyond Peronne. He couldn’t just claim political persecution without addressing the broader pattern—because prosecutors would use that pattern at trial to prove intent.

So Lowell characterized the multi-property investigation as improper “cherry-picking” and attached the FHFA criminal referral (Exhibit F) to show prosecutors looked at Sterling Street, Brooklyn, and Queens properties going back to 1983.

What this means:

The evidence for superseding charges always existed in public records. I documented it starting February 2025. But now Lowell has put it all in one judicial filing, arguing it shows political persecution. Whether that argument succeeds or fails, the other properties are now documented in the court record.

If Judge Walker dismisses for vindictive prosecution: No double jeopardy for different properties. Prosecutors can charge Brooklyn, Sterling, and Queens separately—using Lowell’s own motion acknowledging they were investigated.

If Judge Walker denies the motion: Pattern evidence comes in at trial to prove systematic fraud, not isolated mistake.

Properties documented in Lowell’s motion but not currently charged:

✓ Brooklyn property (20 years of false mortgage statements, federal HAMP fraud)

✓ Sterling Street (false principal residence declaration witnessed by state employees)

✓ Queens property (father listed as husband, 1983)

✓ Financial disclosure violations (five years of phantom mortgages, concealed debt)

Lowell argues examining multiple properties shows political persecution. But whether that argument succeeds, the documentary evidence of fraud on those properties remains.

---

THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT I’VE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED

As a forensic accountant and fraud investigator who has worked with federal law enforcement for over two decades, I’ve stated publicly: There will be superseding indictments.

Here’s why I’m confident:

If Judge Walker dismisses on vindictive prosecution grounds:

• Doesn’t create double jeopardy bar (only acquittal does)
• Doesn’t prevent charging different properties or additional conduct
• Doesn’t erase the documentary evidence
• Doesn’t prevent state prosecution of state crimes

What a superseding indictment could charge:

• Count 1: Bank Fraud – Queens property (1982 – listing father as husband on mortgage loan)
• Count 2-11: Bank Fraud – Brooklyn property (10+ false mortgage statements, 2001-2021)
• Count 12: Federal Program Fraud – HAMP modification obtained through misrepresentation
• Count 13-14: Bank Fraud – Sterling Street property (false principal residence declaration)
• Count 15-19: Wire Fraud – Five years of false financial disclosures (2020-2024) filed electronically
• Count 20: RICO – Operating criminal enterprise spanning 40+ years (using Peronne Ave property as pattern evidence)
• Total potential exposure: 200+ years

And Lowell’s motion just documented why all of it is relevant pattern evidence.

---

WHAT JUDGE WALKER NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND

Your Honor, you face an impossible choice—engineered by Lowell’s motion. But understand this: your ruling doesn’t determine whether James is held accountable. It only determines where and by whom.

Option A: Dismiss on vindictive prosecution grounds

• Constitutionally correct if process was corrupted
• But creates roadmap for superseding indictment charging 40-year enterprise
• Defendant faces hundreds of years of additional exposure
• Lowell’s motion proves pattern isn’t “cherry-picking”
• Your dismissal becomes the blueprint for the superseding indictment

Option B: Deny the motion

• Preserves single-property prosecution with 60-year maximum
• But potentially allows unconstitutional prosecution to proceed
• Creates precedent that political revenge prosecutions are acceptable when grounded in indisputable evidence of wrongdoing
• Your ruling becomes precedent cited in every future vindictive prosecution case

Option C: Dismiss with prejudice

• Constitutional violation remedied
• But allows vindictive prosecution allegations to become a “get out of jail free” card for powerful officials
• Doesn’t stop superseding indictments using the Peronne Ave property as pattern evidence
• Doesn’t stop state prosecution of state crimes (financial disclosure violations)
• Doesn’t stop IRS civil/criminal tax enforcement
• Doesn’t stop state bar disbarment proceedings
• Your ruling sets precedent that documentary evidence can be erased by process claims

Judge Walker: There is no option where Letitia James escapes accountability for 40 years of documented mortgage fraud.

There is no option where your decision isn’t scrutinized by legal scholars, future prosecutors, and history.

The only question is which jurisdiction prosecutes, and how many counts. Your ruling determines the forum—not whether accountability happens.

---

CONCLUSION

Lowell’s 50-page motion makes a sophisticated legal argument about vindictive prosecution. But buried in the legal analysis are factual misrepresentations designed to minimize the scope, mischaracterize evidence, and create ambiguity where none exists.

This is what elite defense lawyers do when facts are against them: They litigate procedure instead of substance.

But the documents don’t lie:

✓ Second Home Rider (August 17, 2020): Required 182.5+ days personal use ✓ IRS Schedule E (2021): Reported “zero personal use days” ✓ Insurance Application (2020): “Owner-occupied non-seasonal use” ✓ Financial Disclosures (2020-2024): Mortgage not disclosed, property classified as “Investment” ✓ Brooklyn (2001-2021): 10+ false statements over 20 years ✓ Sterling (August 2-17, 2023): Email vs. sworn declaration contradict

These are public documents anyone can verify.

This case requires distinguishing between two separate issues:

Legal Question (For Judge Walker): Did the government violate the Constitution by prosecuting James for vindictive or selective reasons?

Factual Question (Verifiable by Public Records): Did Letitia James make false statements on federal mortgage documents spanning 40 years?

Judge Walker: Your ruling answers the first question. The documents answer the second.

But legal dismissal doesn’t erase documentary evidence or prevent:

• Superseding federal indictments (different properties, no double jeopardy)
• State criminal charges (separate sovereigns)
• IRS civil or criminal enforcement
• State bar ethics proceedings
• Civil RICO claims

The question isn’t whether Trump wanted revenge. The question isn’t whether Halligan was legally appointed. The question isn’t whether career prosecutors declined to charge.

The question is: Did Letitia James commit federal crimes?

And the documents answer: Yes.

Judge Walker’s ruling will be scrutinized. His precedent will be cited. His decision will be remembered.

But regardless of how he rules, the documents remain. And accountability will follow.

---

Follow @SamAntar on X for updates on this investigation

Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.