General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,557 posts)

21. That part is true. It's clearly a politically-motivated prosecution

Wed Oct 29, 2025, 04:10 PM

Oct 29

When I've seen it prosecuted in the past, someone lost money or it was part of a much larger scheme involving more than one property.

An even better mode of defense appears to be the possibility that she can get the prosecutor removed from the case.

But I haven't seen anything yet that implies that she didn't do what she is accused of or that it wasn't illegal.

"James purchased the home in Norfolk, Virginia, for her great-niece in 2020 for $137,000 in 2020 and immediately allowed her and her children to begin living in the house rent-free."

All true. And the way she chose to do that appears to be illegal. She should have told the bank that she would not be occupying the home herself (either as a principal or secondary residence) - which would have increased the mortgage payment and the required down-payment. I've seen that happen when the fraud was on the part of the mortgage broker trying to get someone qualified who otherwise would be rejected (losing the broker the commission)... but this is a state AG. She's no sucker.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Three words in Letitia James' mortgage contract doom the fraud case against her [View all] bigtree Oct 29 OP

The author is incorrect FBaggins Oct 29 #1

I'm no lawyer, but other lawyers disagree with you. Happy Hoosier Oct 29 #2

Exclusive use DOES NOT mean that occupancy FBaggins Oct 29 #3

Where did you get your information? dpibel Oct 29 #4

You provided a link to the document FBaggins Oct 29 #5

For the first year dpibel Oct 29 #6

Yes - and the story is that she purchased the home for her grand niece's use FBaggins Oct 29 #8

Did you read the entire article? dpibel Oct 29 #9

I did - none of them are commenting on the topic in the title/OP FBaggins Oct 29 #17

Pretzels are tasty! dpibel Oct 29 #18

I assume that's not an intentional strawman FBaggins Oct 29 #20

Not sure why you're so invested in this dpibel Oct 29 #22

I'm not so sure, either. marble falls Oct 29 #26

it really sucks when you have to NJCher Oct 29 #16

this is specious bigtree Oct 29 #7

Rent isn't actually part of the charges FBaggins Oct 29 #15

smoke. No real prosecutor thought she should be charged. bigtree Oct 29 #19

That part is true. It's clearly a politically-motivated prosecution FBaggins Oct 29 #21

they're not going to spend much time parsing whether she visited the home or stayed there bigtree Oct 29 #25

When you sign a document attesting to exclusive use you don't list everyone who will be occupying the property Hassin Bin Sober Oct 29 #23

Very nicely put. marble falls Oct 29 #27

That's true - and would be a great defense if it were relevant FBaggins Oct 29 #28

Dude. I'm part owner of a mortgage company. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 29 #30

Not possible with a 2nd Home IbogaProject Oct 29 #24

Dudnt her niece live there? viva la Oct 29 #29

When I was young a female CPA told me the expression "picking the fly shit out of pepper". twodogsbarking Oct 29 #10

Quite the discussion above, unless I missed it..... KS Toronado Oct 29 #11

Question: Who is being defrauded here? SpankMe Oct 29 #12

K&R UTUSN Oct 29 #13

She would be better off popsdenver Oct 29 #14