On a mortgage document buried deep in New York City’s property records, someone scrawled words that could now haunt Attorney General Letitia James: “…not more than 6 residential units…” The seemingly innocuous modification potentially allowed James to circumvent federal lending rules that explicitly limited eligibility to properties with no more than four units.
But that’s just one of several handwritten modifications. In the corner of the same document, another notation reads “4 fam”—directly contradicting the property’s official classification as a five-family dwelling in its Certificate of Occupancy. These conflicting modifications, alongside a mortgage instrument that incorrectly describes the property as a “4 family” dwelling, suggest a pattern of misrepresentation rather than isolated mistakes.
Further handwritten notes on the document raise additional red flags. One note (“By assignment dated 8/23/11 – to be recorded simultaneously herewith”) suggests mortgage changes were being made retroactively. These handwritten modifications, when viewed together, form a troubling pattern that demands serious investigation.
For the woman who secured a $355 million judgment against Donald Trump for allegedly misrepresenting property values, these hastily written words represent a stunning contradiction. The same prosecutor who told reporters “no one is above the law” may have sidestepped that very principle to obtain favorable financing terms on her Brooklyn property.
These handwritten modifications—which appear to have been made retroactively—could transform a celebrated legal victory into a personal legal nightmare, as they suggest James may have misrepresented critical details about her property to secure more favorable mortgage terms than she was entitled to receive.
While Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert first raised questions about James’ mortgage arrangements in a March 18 article, my investigation has uncovered new evidence that dramatically escalates the seriousness of these allegations. What began as a simple review of public records has revealed a troubling pattern of inconsistencies spanning more than two decades.
The Paper Trail: Two Decades of Discrepancies
Public records tell a revealing story. Property records and loan documents show a pattern where James’ Brooklyn property is consistently reported as having four units on mortgage documents—despite official records classifying it as a five-unit dwelling. This discrepancy, while appearing minor on the surface, carries significant implications.
Properties with five or more units are classified as commercial rather than residential—a distinction that typically results in higher interest rates and stricter lending requirements. More critically, this classification would have made James ineligible for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal program designed to help struggling homeowners reduce their monthly mortgage payments.
In 2011, James received a HAMP modification on her Brooklyn property that potentially saved her tens of thousands of dollars in mortgage payments. But the program guidelines clearly state that eligible properties must have no more than four units. The latest Certificate of Occupancy for James’ property, issued in 2001, classifies it as a five-family dwelling.
The Smoking Gun: Contradictory Handwritten Modifications
Multiple Conflicting Notations
The most compelling evidence comes from the HAMP agreement itself, which contains multiple contradictory handwritten notations. On one hand, a notation in the corner reads “4 fam,” suggesting the property qualifies as a four-family dwelling eligible for HAMP. Yet elsewhere on the same document, another handwritten clause states:
“This security instrument covers real property improved principly [sic] or to be improved by 1 or more structures containing in the aggregate not more than 6 residential units, with each dwelling having its own cooking facility.”
Pattern of Apparent Manipulation
This presents a puzzling contradiction: why would one handwritten note specify “4 fam” while another extends the limit to six units? More importantly, both contradict the property’s official classification as a five-unit dwelling in its Certificate of Occupancy.
The handwritten modifications raise several red flags:
- The “4 fam” notation appears to deliberately classify the property as eligible for HAMP despite its official five-unit classification
- The six-unit extension directly contradicts HAMP’s strict four-unit maximum
- The use of “or” in the longer modification creates deliberate ambiguity about the property’s status at the time of application
- The phrase “to be improved by” suggests the property might have fewer units at application time, while allowing for more units later—a potential loophole to circumvent program requirements
- The misspelled word “principly” suggests this was hastily added, possibly by someone other than a legal professional
Evidence of Retroactive Alterations
Adding to these concerns, another handwritten note on the document states: “By assignment dated 8/23/11 – to be recorded simultaneously herewith.” This suggests the mortgage was being assigned or modified at the same time—potentially as part of a retroactive correction to address questions about the property’s classification.
The Title Company Question
Title companies routinely include Certificates of Occupancy (C of O) in their property searches. This raises the key question: Did the title company flag that Letitia James’ C of O listed 5 units, while her mortgage applications stated only 4?
- If the title company missed it, does this point to a due diligence failure?
- If they flagged it, why did the lender approve the mortgage anyway, knowing the loan was intended to be securitized?
- Was this an oversight, a systemic failure, or something more deliberate?
This makes it unlikely that James’ property’s true classification was unknown to all parties involved. It raises even more questions about whether the lender knowingly approved a loan that violated program requirements, or if James misrepresented her property to qualify for favorable terms.
The Legal Implications: From Civil to Criminal Concerns
These documented discrepancies move beyond simple paperwork errors and potentially into the realm of federal violations. Given James’ legal background as New York’s chief law enforcement officer, she would undoubtedly understand the potential legal consequences of misrepresenting property details on mortgage documents. Mortgage fraud is a federal crime that can result in significant fines and imprisonment. If funds crossed state lines in the process, federal wire fraud statutes could also come into play.
The contradictory handwritten modifications are particularly troubling because they suggest a deliberate attempt to create ambiguity in the loan agreement—potentially to justify a loan that would otherwise fail to meet program requirements. The question becomes: who authorized these modifications, and was the lender fully aware of their implications?
The Double Standard
The irony of this situation cannot be overstated. As Attorney General, James prosecuted Donald Trump for allegedly manipulating property valuations to obtain financial advantages—the very type of conduct that these documents suggest she may have engaged in herself.
This creates a troubling double standard: can the state’s top legal officer hold others accountable for financial misrepresentations while potentially engaging in similar conduct? James famously stated during her case against Trump that “no one is above the law.” These documents raise serious questions about whether she has applied that same standard to her own financial dealings.
The Bottom Line
HAMP was specifically designed to help struggling homeowners with residential properties—not landlords of multi-unit buildings that cross the threshold into commercial territory. My investigation has revealed that if James incorrectly classified her property details to qualify for this program, it represents more than just a clerical error; it raises serious questions about compliance with federal lending laws and potential deliberate misrepresentation.
The contradictory handwritten modifications I’ve discovered add a troubling new dimension to this case. They suggest not only possible misrepresentation of the property’s classification but also potential retroactive alterations to documents—modifications that allowed James to benefit from a federal program for which her property should have been ineligible.
What Comes Next?
As this evidence comes to light, several questions demand answers:
- 🔎 Will federal regulators investigate these contradictory handwritten modifications and their legal implications?
- 🔎 Will James be held to the same legal standards she has applied to others?
- 🔎 Should her role as New York’s top law enforcement officer be reevaluated in light of these findings?
Given James’ own words in prosecuting Donald Trump—“No one is above the law”—many are now asking: Does that include Letitia James herself?
Written by: Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.
Editor’s Note: This article was updated on April 9, 2025 to refine our reporting. Our follow-up investigation confirmed that all document references cited in the mortgage paperwork are properly recorded in public records. This update strengthens our overall findings, as it demonstrates a consistent paper trail of the handwritten modifications and property classification discrepancies that form the central focus of our investigation.
[This investigation continues our ongoing series examining New York Attorney General Letitia James’ financial disclosures and property transactions.]