PebHmong Discussion Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hung_Low on May 08, 2025, 03:12:02 PM
-
Yeah, I'm talking about that TDS suffering activist, NY AG Letitia James. The one that brought charges against Trump for fraud... she was doing the same thing just prior to bring charges against Trump.
Her defense lawyer, Abbe Lowell, came out swinging and claimed that she just made a little mistake/error claiming the Virginia home was her main residence and she corrected the issue.
However, the timeline don't add up: from the White Collar Fraud
Lowell's 1st claim:
“In 2023, Ms. James assisted her niece, Shamice Thompson-Hairston, who needed financial support, with the down payment to purchase a home in Norfolk, Virginia. The mortgage application required only one individual to live at the property. Director Pulte cherry-picked an August 17, 2023 power of attorney that mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James’ principal residence and at the same time absolutely ignored her very clear and all caps statement two weeks earlier to the mortgage loan broker that ‘[t]his property WILL NOT be my primary residence[.] It will be Shamice’s primary residence.’ Exhibit A. The broker understood this, and that Ms. James was not a Virginia resident, and replied, ‘Section 4 indicates that the property will be occupied as a primary residence for Shamice. . . . Your declaration is marked as a non-occupying co-borrower.’ Id.”
Lowell’s first claim establishes a critical date: August 3, 2023 – “two weeks earlier” than the August 17 Power of Attorney. In that August 17 POA, James explicitly declared her “intent to occupy this property as my principal residence” – the very declaration now at the center of the investigation. This timing creates the first major contradiction: Lowell acknowledges that on August 3, James told the mortgage broker in writing that the property “WILL NOT be my primary residence.” Yet just two weeks later, she signed a legal document stating the exact opposite. Crucially, Lowell designates this August 3 email as “Exhibit A” in his defense letter. This seemingly minor citation detail becomes enormously significant when we examine his second claim.
Lowell's 2nd claim:
“Furthermore, after the erroneous power of attorney (given to the person who would be the principal resident), Ms. James filled out a Uniform Residential Loan Application, including property ‘occupancy’ information for the loan, in which she again made clear that the Norfolk property was not her ‘primary residence.’ Section 5 of the Loan Application, titled ‘Declarations,’ asks, ‘Will you occupy the property as your primary residence?’ and Ms. James marked ‘NO.’ Id. And yet, in the hundreds of pages that comprise the Norfolk loan application and other mortgage documents, Director Pulte points to a two-page power of attorney that was clearly mistaken and failed to reference Ms. James’ clear and repeated accurate statements.”
The “Id” deception explained: In legal writing, “Id.” means “same as the previous citation.” By using this shorthand instead of explicitly stating “Exhibit A from August 3,” Lowell creates the false impression that James filled out a form after the Power of Attorney. But both the email and the form he references are from the same August 3rd exhibit—two weeks before the Power of Attorney.
This careful deception wording creates the false impression that:
1. James said “no” before signing the POA (August 3)
2. She made a “mistake” on the POA (August 17)
3. She corrected it by filling out another form after the POA
Examination of the actual “Exhibit A” conclusively disproves this timeline. Both the email exchange AND the Section 5 form were part of the same August 3 communication – two weeks BEFORE she signed the POA declaring it her principal residence. This is crucial because it means the supposed “correction” actually preceded the alleged “mistake” – making it impossible for the August 17 declaration to be an innocent error that was later fixed.
Put simply: How can you correct a mistake before you make it? The August 3 form wasn’t a correction of the POA – it was a contradiction that James knowingly overrode two weeks later when she declared the property would be her principal residence.
The very document Lowell claims was completed “after the erroneous power of attorney” to correct the mistake was actually completed two weeks before the POA was ever signed. The supposed post-POA correction that forms the centerpiece of James’ defense is actually pre-POA documentation that proves she knowingly made a false declaration.
This isn’t just misleading legal writing; it’s a deliberate attempt to create a false chronology that falls apart when the actual documents are examined.
With this understanding of Lowell’s deceptive citation technique, let’s now look at the actual August 3rd email—the smoking gun that conclusively exposes this chronological sleight of hand.
The August 3rd email referenced as “Exhibit A” in Lowell’s defense conclusively exposes this misrepresentat ion. This email from mortgage broker Mike Voci to Letitia James includes as an attachment the very Section 5 form that Lowell described as being completed “after the erroneous power of attorney.”
The email header clearly shows the date: August 3, 2023 – two weeks before the Power of Attorney was executed on August 17. The Section 5 form with the “NO” checkbox is attached to this email, not a separate document completed after the POA as Lowell implies.
(https://whitecollarfraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/2023-08-03-Michael-Voci-Email-to-Letitia-James-1024x448.jpg)
The Broker’s Email – August 3, 2023 “Section 4 indicates that the property will be occupied as a primary residence for Shamice. The loan is originated as a primary residence. Your declaration is marked as a non-occupying co-borrower. The file is set up correctly and rate is locked as a primary residence.”
This email makes two things crystal clear:
1. The Section 5 form he claims was completed “after” the POA was actually part of the August 3rd exchange – two weeks earlier
2. While James was initially marked as a “non-occupying co-borrower,” the loan was nonetheless being “originated as a primary residence” with favorable rates “locked”. This isn’t evidence of a mistake corrected – it’s evidence of a loan structured in a contradictory manner that would later require the POA declaration to resolve.
If Lowell’s narrative were true, we would expect to find at least one document dated after August 17 where James declared non-occupancy. Yet despite his reference to “hundreds of pages” of mortgage documents, he fails to identify a single post-POA document supporting his claim.
Lowell’s claim that James personally completed a loan application “after the erroneous power of attorney” contradicts fundamental mortgage procedures. Once a Power of Attorney is executed, the principal (James) doesn’t continue personally filling out loan paperwork – that’s precisely why she appointed an attorney-in-fact. The person designated as POA does the rest... For James to have completed forms “after the erroneous power of attorney” would violate the very purpose of executing a POA in the first place.
Finally, if James had indeed corrected the “mistake” after the POA, the final mortgage would reflect her status as a non-occupying co-borrower. Yet the Deed of Trust recorded on August 31, 2023 includes standard language requiring all borrowers (this includes all co-borrowers if there are any)to establish the property as their principal residence. The Deed of Trust: “Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower’s principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless Lender determines that this requirement shall cause undue hardship for the Borrower, or unless extenuating circumstances exist which are beyond Borrower’s control.”
She's guilty as hell... she's worst than Trump.
Now, that it's looking bad for her... Her Leftie/Demmie cronies are out to protect her. Albany Democrats are expected to sign off on a provision allowing certain officials to tap into a $10 million fund to cover “any reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred” — even as part of probes not directly related to their state employment. The language is being slipped into New York’s operations budget bill — one of several expected to be made public and voted on starting Wednesday as the Legislature moves to pass next year’s fiscal plan.
Multiple sources says that the specific language in the bill would apply to James’ looming legal fight.
New York State Committee Chairman Ed Cox (a GOP) quickly lashed out over the move to slip a legal “bailout” to James, calling it an “outrageous abuse of power and a slap in the face to every New Yorker. This is what corruption looks like in plain sight: political insiders rigging the system to protect their own, while hardworking families get shortchanged. Tish James used her office to wage partisan lawfare against her political opponents, and now New Yorkers are footing the bill for the consequences.”
[/i]
Under New York law, current and former state employees can be reimbursed for legal fees to defend themselves against lawsuits directly related to their work while in office, such as is the case with former Gov. Andrew Cuomo — whose various scandals are estimated to have cost taxpayers $60 million and counting.
However, the provision in this bill is specifically geared to benefit state employees who, as a result of their jobs, are subjected to “discriminatory or retaliatory treatment” by the federal government.
While the bill language doesn’t mention James by name, it indicates state employees could be covered if the “legally compulsive process” was initiated by the feds “after Jan. 1, 2025.” When Trump won the election. They're not even trying to hide it, it's in plain site...
The bill would cover those who “obtained representation by private counsel in response to any request, summons, command, subpoena, warrant, investigative interview or document request, audit or legally compulsive process” started by the feds after that date as a result of their state employment or duties.
Lititia James plans to rely on both state funds and a private legal defense fund to fight the battle, a spokesman for the AG’s Office confirmed. Hence, the Dem control NY congress is trying to fund her case by forcing NYers to pay for it.