The Case Against NY Attorney General Letitia James to Date

Executive Summary

This comprehensive investigative report presents original research conducted by the author, consolidating key findings to date—including documented evidence that New York Attorney General Letitia James has engaged in a consistent pattern of financial and property disclosures that raise serious legal questions. By bringing these discrepancies together in one document, the report offers a clear roadmap for further investigation by journalists, regulatory authorities, and ethics officials. The evidence points not to isolated errors, but to a systematic pattern of misrepresentation that raises serious questions about James’s legal compliance, transparency, and ethical obligations as New York’s top law enforcement official.

Key Areas of Concern

➤ You can click on any linked issue below to jump directly to its detailed section later in this report:

Principal Residence Misrepresentation: In August 2023, James signed a Specific Power of Attorney declaring her intent to make 604 Sterling Street in Norfolk, Virginia her “principal residence”—a legally binding statement that may have automatically vacated her position as NY Attorney General under Public Officers Law § 30. This declaration came just 45 days before she launched her landmark civil fraud case against Donald Trump. It also potentially constituted mortgage fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which criminalizes false statements made to obtain a loan.
Hidden and Phantom Mortgages: On her first Virginia property at 3121 Peronne Avenue, James used a $109,600 mortgage from OVM Financial in 2020 but never disclosed it on any of her NY financial disclosure forms, despite legal requirements to do so. Later, in her 2023 disclosure, she reported two different mortgages—one from Freedom Mortgage ($150,000-$250,000) and one from National Mortgage ($100,000-$150,000)—but a 2025 title search found no record of either loan, suggesting they may be fictional.
Severe Overleveraging: If all three mortgages are considered, James claims $509,600 in mortgage debt on a Virginia property assessed at just $187,300—a loan-to-value ratio of 272%, far beyond any rational underwriting standard and likely impossible to obtain through legitimate lending channels.
Brooklyn Property Unit Count Misrepresentation: Since 2001, Letitia James has repeatedly represented her property at 296 Lafayette Avenue as a four-family dwelling on mortgage applications and permit filings—even though its official Certificate of Occupancy designates it as a five-family building. Under federal lending guidelines, buildings with five or more units are treated as commercial properties, subject to stricter underwriting standards, including higher down payments, lower loan-to-value limits, and more complex documentation requirements. By misclassifying the property, James may have obtained more favorable residential loan terms—such as lower interest rates and easier approval criteria—that she would not have qualified for if the property had been accurately reported. This misrepresentation also enabled her to secure a federal HAMP mortgage modification in 2011, despite the program explicitly excluding buildings with more than four units. The pattern raises serious questions about the accuracy of her mortgage filings and her compliance with lending and disclosure regulations.
Undisclosed HAMP Mortgage and Handwritten Alterations: In 2011, James received a federally subsidized HAMP mortgage modification that required the property to have no more than four residential units. The official Certificate of Occupancy showed five. My investigation revealed critical last-minute handwritten notations in the mortgage document, including “4 fam” in one corner and a contradictory note stating “not more than 6 residential units“—suggesting deliberate manipulation to maintain technical eligibility while creating plausible deniability about the property’s true status.
Missing and Misclassified Mortgages: James’s financial disclosures reveal a pattern of delayed reporting, missing mortgages, and unexplained classification changes. A 2019 Citibank HELOC went undisclosed for three years, then mysteriously disappeared from her 2023 disclosure with no record of satisfaction. Similarly, a 2021 Citizens Bank mortgage went undisclosed that year, appeared as a mortgage in 2022, then was reclassified as a HELOC in 2023—all without corresponding documentation in public records.
Undisclosed Rental Income: In 2013, Crain’s New York reported that James had failed to disclose rental income from her Brooklyn property for at least five years. Even after being exposed, she understated her actual rental income of $44,400 when filing corrections. Similarly, she reported rental income from her Norfolk property in 2020, then reported zero income in subsequent years while still claiming ownership—leaving unexplained why the active mortgage on the property was never disclosed as required.
Taxpayer-Funded Private Jet Travel: Between 2020-2021, the Attorney General’s Office spent $41,807.80 in taxpayer funds on private jet travel through Venture Jets Inc., a vendor used by no other state agency. Several flights coincided with James’s campaign activities, including a Martha’s Vineyard trip and the politically significant SOMOS conference in Puerto Rico where she was described as being “fully in campaign mode.”
Luxury Campaign Spending with Creative Accounting: Campaign filings show a pattern of luxury travel with inconsistent expense categorization. The same hotel charges on the same day were often split between different expense categories (“Office,” “Lodging,” “Transportation”), making it nearly impossible to track true expenditure purposes. In May 2022, after her office stopped paying Venture Jets, her campaign picked up the tab—paying over $12,000 to the same charter company.
Selective Enforcement of Building Codes: When a complaint was filed about the discrepancy between James’s property’s five-unit Certificate of Occupancy and her four-unit permit applications, building authorities dismissed it as a “MINOR ERROR”—a striking contrast to how such violations are treated for ordinary New Yorkers, who face stop-work orders, substantial penalties, and even forced vacancy for similar infractions.
The 1983 Queens Property “Husband and Wife” Designation: Records show that in 1983, Letitia James and her father, Robert James, co-signed a mortgage document identifying themselves as “husband and wife”—a legal classification that typically confers specific benefits not available to a father-daughter relationship.

Pattern of Inconsistency

These aren’t isolated incidents but reveal a systematic approach to financial and property reporting that spans multiple jurisdictions, decades, and legal filings. The fact that these patterns have persisted throughout James’s rise to become New York’s chief law enforcement officer—the very official responsible for prosecuting similar misrepresentations—makes these findings particularly significant and demands thorough investigation.

1. 604 Sterling Street, Norfolk VA: Principal Residence Declaration and Mortgage Fraud Risks

On August 17, 2023, while serving as New York Attorney General and preparing to lead the high-profile civil fraud trial against Donald Trump, Letitia James executed a Specific Power of Attorney declaring:

“I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”

This declaration—made under oath and filed as part of a real estate transaction in Norfolk, Virginia—authorized her relative to act on her behalf in securing a mortgage for the purchase of 604 Sterling Street.

The mortgage agreement required the property to be established as a principal residence within 60 days of closing (approximately October 30, 2023) and maintained for at least one year.

However, all available evidence suggests James never relocated. Within 45 days of signing, she was in Manhattan nearly daily, launching her landmark civil fraud case against Trump on October 2, 2023. Her official communications throughout fall 2023 continued listing her Brooklyn address.

The Missing Homestead Exemption

What further undermines James’s declaration is the absence of a Virginia homestead exemption filing. Virginia law allows homeowners to protect up to $25,000 of equity in their principal residence by filing a Homestead Deed with the local court clerk’s office—a document that would have both protected and confirmed her residency status.

A title search confirmed that neither James nor her co-borrower ever filed a homestead exemption for the Sterling Street property. The title report explicitly states: “Home Exemp($): 0.00”

This raises critical questions: Who, if anyone, is actually occupying this property? Virginia’s homestead exemption can only be claimed on a genuine principal residence. The failure of both borrowers to file this simple protection suggests neither may be living there. Is the property sitting vacant, or is it perhaps being rented to others—despite mortgage terms requiring owner occupancy?

This creates an irreconcilable timeline:

August 17, 2023: James declares Virginia property her “principal residence”
October 2, 2023: Trump fraud trial begins in Manhattan
By October 30, 2023: Mortgage terms required James to be living in Virginia
To Present: No homestead exemption has ever been filed by either borrower

This declaration raises three serious concerns:

Potential Mortgage Fraud: If James never intended to move, signing this declaration solely to obtain better loan terms available only to owner-occupants may constitute a violation of federal law prohibiting false statements to financial institutions.
Office Vacancy Issue: If James did intend to make Virginia her principal residence, she may have vacated her office under NYS Public Officers Law § 30(1)(d), which deems any out-of-state relocation as an automatic resignation.
Disclosure Failure: James failed to disclose this mortgage on her 2023 New York financial disclosure, despite clear requirements to report any debt over $10,000.

If the property is being rented, this creates yet another disclosure problem. Under New York State ethics guidelines, any rental property owned by a public official must be disclosed on their annual financial disclosure statement, along with any rental income received. James’s 2023 disclosure contains no mention of this property or any associated income.

This sworn declaration to establish a home in another state—while preparing to prosecute one of New York’s most high-profile civil fraud trials—threatens the legality of her mortgage, her eligibility to hold office, and her ethical standing as the state’s top law enforcement official.

As detailed in my April 1, 2025 blog post, this isn’t simply about having multiple homes. New York Public Officers Law is unambiguous about state residency requirements for civil office holders.

2. 3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk VA: Undisclosed Mortgage and Fictitious Liabilities

Letitia James purchased 3121 Peronne Avenue in Norfolk, Virginia on August 19, 2020, for $137,000. Public records confirm the purchase was financed with a $109,600 mortgage from OVM Financial that remains active as of a 2025 title search.

Despite this, James never disclosed the OVM mortgage on her New York financial disclosure forms from 2020 through 2023, even though she listed rental income from the property in 2020. Public Officers Law § 73-a requires disclosure of all mortgages on income-producing properties, regardless of amount or whether income is currently being received.

After reporting rental income of $1,000-$5,000 in 2020, James listed no income in 2021, 2022, or 2023—even though she retained ownership. Then, in her 2023 disclosure, James reported no rental income but added two new lenders—Freedom Mortgage and National Mortgage—with outstanding liabilities of up to $400,000.

Severe Overleveraging

This raises a serious red flag: neither of these two new mortgages appears in the Norfolk property’s chain of title. A 2025 title search confirmed no recorded liens from either lender exist. Considering all three mortgages, the total debt on the property would reach $509,600—more than 270% of its assessed value of $187,300.

Such an extreme loan-to-value ratio is virtually unheard of under conventional lending standards and is likely uninsurable without significant collateral or fraud. The absence of any record from Freedom or National Mortgage suggests one of three possibilities:

The mortgages never existed: If James falsely included these debts on a sworn statement, it may constitute a false filing under oath.
The mortgages were misrepresented: If the loans exist but were not recorded, this violates title insurance and lender disclosure rules.
They were included to obscure the original debt: Reporting phantom mortgages while omitting the real one (OVM) allowed James to present a fictitious liability profile while avoiding mandatory disclosure.

As I detailed in my March 3, 2025 blog post, this cannot be dismissed as a clerical error. The timeline shows a deliberate shift—from reporting rental income without the mortgage, to claiming new mortgage debt without rental income.

3. Brooklyn Property Unit Count Misrepresentation and Pattern of Financial Disclosure Failures

Letitia James purchased 296 Lafayette Avenue on February 14, 2001, shortly after a new Certificate of Occupancy was issued on January 26, 2001, classifying it as a legal five-family dwelling. From the beginning, her mortgage documents told a different story.

Unit Count Misrepresentations and HAMP Alterations

James’ original 2001 mortgage included a 1–4 Family Rider—a legal rider intended exclusively for properties with four or fewer residential units.

Even more notably, the mortgage was stamped “Premises Improved by One or Two Family Dwelling”—a direct contradiction of the building’s official five-unit classification as per the Certificate of Occupancy.

Further contradicting city records, a handwritten note in an August 29, 2003 document from Washington Title describes the property as “improved by a 4 family dwelling.” None of these characterizations are consistent with the legally recognized status of the building.

This misrepresentation had significant financial implications. Under federal lending standards, five-unit buildings are classified as commercial properties and subject to stricter underwriting requirements—including higher down payments, different debt-service coverage ratios, and less favorable loan terms. By falsely representing the building as having four units, James may have improperly qualified for more advantageous residential mortgage terms she would not have been entitled to under accurate classification.

This pattern continued for years, culminating in the 2011 HAMP mortgage modification, which explicitly required the property to have four or fewer residential units. The program guidelines clearly excluded buildings with five or more units, making James’ five-unit building ineligible. As first uncovered by Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert, James received a federally subsidized mortgage modification for a building that, on its face, did not qualify.

Building on Gilbert’s initial findings, my investigation revealed critical handwritten modifications in the HAMP agreement that strongly suggest deliberate efforts to circumvent eligibility rules. As I detailed in my March 18, 2025 blog post, these handwritten notations appear to have been added after the document was drafted and immediately before filing—a crucial timing element. The notes include “4 fam” hastily written in one corner and another contradictory annotation stating “…not more than 6 residential units, with each dwelling having its own cooking facility“—creating deliberate ambiguity about the property’s status.

These last-minute modifications appear calculated to preserve technical HAMP eligibility while acknowledging the building’s true nature in a way that could provide plausible deniability. Such alterations to legal mortgage documents, especially on a federally subsidized program, raise serious questions about whether they constitute an attempt to mislead lenders about the property’s eligibility for the modification program.

All subsequent mortgage documents between 2011 and 2021 similarly misrepresented the property as having only four units—a consistent pattern spanning the entire period of her ownership.

The unit count discrepancy persisted into recent years. In 2020, James submitted at least two permit applications to the NYC Department of Buildings—Job #340743146 explicitly stated “Dwelling Units: Existing: 4” despite the Certificate of Occupancy listing five units for the past 19 years.

Missing and Misclassified Mortgages

James’ financial disclosure statements—filed annually under penalty of perjury as required by Public Officers Law § 73-a—reveal persistent irregularities in reporting real estate assets, mortgage liabilities, and income.

In August 2019, she recorded a Citibank HELOC for $100,000 but failed to report it in her 2019, 2020, or 2021 financial disclosures. It finally appeared in her 2022 disclosure, misclassified as a traditional mortgage, only to vanish completely from her 2023 filing with no record of satisfaction in public documents.

Similarly, she recorded a Citizens Bank mortgage in July 2021 but didn’t disclose it that year. It appeared in her 2022 disclosure as a mortgage, then was inexplicably reclassified as a HELOC in 2023—again, with no corresponding modification in public records.

This shifting classification scheme obscures the true nature of her liabilities. At the same time, her 2023 filing lists two mortgages—Freedom Mortgage and National Mortgage—purportedly tied to her Virginia property that, as shown earlier, have no record in the property’s land records.

Most troubling is the absence of any efforts to resolve these discrepancies. Despite over two decades of ownership, James has never filed an Alt-1 application to legally reduce the number of residential units, nor has she obtained an amended Certificate of Occupancy. Official city records continue to classify her building as a five-family dwelling—while her mortgage documents, financial disclosures, and permit applications persistently claim otherwise.

Omitted Rental Income and Prior Violations

James’ history of disclosure issues stretches back over a decade. In 2013, Crain’s New York reported that James had failed to disclose rental income from her Lafayette Avenue property for at least five years—despite public voter registrations showing tenants lived there. She later filed a correction, but even then understated her actual rental income of $44,400, reporting it instead in the “$5,000-$43,999.99” range.

That same year, another Crain’s investigation discovered James had underreported her campaign spending by 50% during a two-month filing period.

In her 2020 disclosure, James listed rental income from her Norfolk property at 3121 Peronne Avenue. In the following years—2021, 2022, and 2023—she listed no rental income at all, despite retaining ownership and claiming new mortgage liabilities. While James stopped reporting rental income after 2020, the OVM mortgage remained active and independently reportable under New York law—regardless of income status.

According to the official FDS guide, all mortgages on income properties—regardless of whether they are current, dormant, or fully paid—must be disclosed. Additionally, any debt above $10,000 from any source must be reported. James’ failure to disclose the OVM mortgage, her delayed and shifting classifications of the Citibank and Citizens Bank loans, and her reporting of phantom liabilities all appear to violate both the letter and the spirit of the law.

These are not technicalities. Under New York law, filing a false or incomplete financial disclosure is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, and may also trigger administrative penalties and professional sanctions.

Viewed in context, Letitia James’ disclosure filings reflect a sustained pattern of evasion, delay, misclassification, and omission. For New York’s Attorney General—the official responsible for prosecuting fraud—these failures demand investigation.

4. Taxpayer-Funded Private Jet Travel

Between November 2020 and December 2021, the New York Attorney General’s Office under Letitia James spent $41,807.80 in taxpayer funds on private jet charters through Venture Jets Inc., a luxury aviation provider used by no other New York state agency during this period.

According to the New York State Comptroller’s checkbook database, these flights often coincided with campaign activities rather than official business:

An August 10, 2021 flight ($7,015.45) occurred on the exact same day James’ campaign paid $2,000 for a Martha’s Vineyard house rental
Two separate payments on November 8, 2021 (totaling $13,246.15) coincided with the SOMOS conference in Puerto Rico, where City & State described James as being “fully in campaign mode”
A November 22, 2021 flight ($7,426.10) came during a post-election period with no identified public purpose
The most expensive flight on December 13, 2021 ($8,630.10) had no associated public event to justify it

Most concerning is the lack of documentation. The public records contain no passenger manifests, flight itineraries, or formal justifications for these flights. When taxpayer funding for private jets ended in December 2021, James’ campaign immediately picked up the tab—paying Venture Jets $12,049 in May 2022.

The pattern suggests a coordinated strategy of using taxpayer resources for travel that appears to align with campaign activities. In several instances, these taxpayer-funded flights occurred on the same days James’ campaign was paying for luxury hotels in the same locations.

5. Luxury Campaign Spending with Creative Accounting

Letitia James’ campaign filings reveal a recurring pattern of luxury travel during peak political periods, inconsistent expense categorization, and poor transparency. What emerges is a coordinated strategy—charging high-end lodging to her campaign while her public office simultaneously funded charter jet services through Venture Jets Inc.

Martha’s Vineyard Travel

In August 2021, James’ campaign expensed a $2,000 Martha’s Vineyard house rental through Macon Property Management LLC (categorized as “Office”) on August 10—the exact same day her official office paid $7,015.45 for a private jet flight through Venture Jets. During this same trip, her campaign spent over $2,600 at Edgar Hotel Martha’s Vineyard across August 17-18, also classified as “Office” expenses with the explanation “Hotel Stay for FR” [fundraiser].

Two years later, in August-September 2023, the campaign returned to Martha’s Vineyard, spending $4,335 at “Nathans Luxlifestyle” (labeled as “Lodging”) and another $1,413.67 at Edgar Hotel (classified as “Office” with explanation “FundraiserLodging”).

The campaign’s September 2024 Martha’s Vineyard transportation expenses raise significant questions. Records show $5,191.68 paid to “Blue Fin Taxi” across two payments—$3,455.68 on September 6 and another $1,736 on September 23 (noted as “MV Travel balance Elite Transportation”). On an island just 9 miles wide, with typical fares averaging $10-$15 per mile, such spending would require hundreds of miles in travel—daily. The math simply doesn’t add up, raising serious questions about whether this was reckless donor spending or something more concerning in how the expenses were reported.

SOMOS Conference Travel

During the November 2021 SOMOS conference in Puerto Rico, James’ campaign filed multiple luxury hotel expenses, often inconsistently categorized. Her campaign spent $438.10 on November 5 and $1,460.43 on November 8 at La Concha Renaissance San Juan Resort—both classified as “Office” expenses. As documented in the previous section, these hotel stays coincided with two taxpayer-funded private jet flights totaling $13,246.15—paid by her office on November 8, 2021, the very day James was actively campaigning at SOMOS.

The campaign records also reveal substantial spending at the Beverly Wilshire luxury hotel in Los Angeles during mid-November 2021, with multiple charges on November 12 alone totaling $2,860.50, all categorized as “Lodging.” Additional Beverly Wilshire charges appear on November 15 and 16.

May 2022 Travel and Venture Jets Reemergence

After her public office stopped paying Venture Jets Inc., James’ campaign picked up the tab—paying $12,049 directly to “Venure Jets” [sic] for private air travel on May 27, 2022. That same reporting period shows numerous luxury hotel stays, including at SLS Hotel Beverly Hills and Marriott San Francisco Marquis, all vaguely labeled “Lodging” or “Office.”

Perhaps most telling is the inconsistent labeling of expenses across these filings. The same hotel, on the same day, was categorized under different expense purposes—sometimes “Lodging,” other times “Transportation” or “Office.” For example, airline charges that appear identical in amount and timing are variously classified as “Office” or “Transportation.” These inconsistencies make it nearly impossible to assess the true purpose of travel and suggest a pattern designed to obscure the scope, intent, and funding sources behind campaign activity.

6. The Double Standard in Enforcement

Letitia James rose to national prominence through her prosecution of Donald Trump for allegedly misrepresenting property values and assets. In February 2024, she secured a $355 million judgment against the former president based on claims that he inflated asset values to obtain better loan terms.

The parallels to James’ own apparent misrepresentations are striking:

Property Declarations: Trump was found liable for misrepresenting property values; James declared a Virginia property her “principal residence” while serving as New York’s top legal officer.
Loan Documentation: Trump allegedly misled lenders about asset values; James appears to have misrepresented her Brooklyn building’s unit count on mortgage applications and obtained a HAMP modification for which her five-unit building did not qualify.
Financial Disclosures: Trump was accused of financial reporting inconsistencies; James failed to disclose mortgages, reported phantom loans, and showed a pattern of delayed and shifting classifications.

The most glaring double standard appears in the handling of building code violations. When a complaint was filed specifically about the discrepancy between James’ property’s Certificate of Occupancy (five units) and her permit applications (claiming four units), the Department of Buildings dismissed it as a “MINOR ERROR.”

The complaint explicitly stated: “THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN BUILDNG PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – APPLICATIONS LIST THE BUILDING AS A 4 FAMILY BUT C OF O INDICATES A 5 FAMILY DWELLING. PERMIT APPLICATIONS SIGNED BY LETITIA JAMES APPEAR TO CONTAIN FALSE INFORMATION.”

For ordinary New Yorkers, such discrepancies trigger serious consequences:

Immediate stop-work orders
Substantial financial penalties
Expensive remediation requirements
In some cases, forced vacancy until compliance is achieved

According to the Department of Buildings, illegal conversion violations are taken seriously because they “put people at risk” and “in the event of a fire or other emergency can pose serious risks to tenants, neighbors and first responders.”

In one documented case, when tenants discovered their building contained more units than listed on its Certificate of Occupancy, the DOB required “the presence of 24/7 fire guards as a condition of continued occupancy,” and courts supported tenants who organized a rent strike over the violation.

This selective enforcement undermines the fundamental principle that the rule of law must apply equally to everyone—a principle James herself has repeatedly invoked in her public statements.

7. The 1983 Queens Property “Husband and Wife” Designation

In addition to the Brooklyn and Virginia properties, public land records show that in 1983, 24-year-old Letitia James and her father, Robert James, co-signed a mortgage document identifying themselves as “husband and wife.”

As initially reported by Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert in March 2025, this designation appears in the official mortgage documents filed with the Queens County Clerk’s office. This wasn’t a simple clerical error—”husband and wife” is a legal classification typically used to assign joint liability or grant rights of survivorship between married co-borrowers.

The false representation may have allowed the applicants to access more favorable loan terms, such as higher combined income qualification or reduced underwriting scrutiny. If knowingly submitted, this misrepresentation would fall under the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making false statements to a federally insured financial institution.

Although the statute of limitations has long expired on this 1983 transaction, it establishes an early historical precedent for the type of legal and financial misstatements that have become a recurring theme in James’s later mortgage and disclosure history.

8. A Four-Decade Pattern Emerges

When viewed chronologically, these discrepancies create a remarkable four-decade pattern showing consistent issues with financial and property disclosures:

1983: Queens property documents with father list relationship as “husband and wife”
2000: Sale of Queens property documents still listed relationship as “husband and wife”
2000: DOB violation issued for Brooklyn property; still open today
2001: C/O issued for five units after property passed inspection; mortgage filed as if four
2003: Title annotation: “4 family dwelling”
2007: Scaffolding violation issued; remained unresolved for seven years
2008–09: Property taxes unpaid while serving in public office
2011: HAMP agreement with “4 fam” handwritten
2013: Crain’s reveals failure to report rental income and campaign expenditures
2019: Citibank HELOC recorded but not disclosed until 2022
2020: Norfolk property purchased; OVM mortgage never disclosed
2020: Brooklyn permit application again lists four units
2021: Citizens Bank mortgage recorded but not disclosed that year
2021: Multiple private jet flights paid by taxpayer funds coincide with campaign events
2022: Reports 42% value increase in Brooklyn property while city assessment shows decrease
2023: Citibank HELOC disappears from financial disclosure without explanation
2023: Reports phantom mortgages on Virginia property
2023: Declares second Virginia property her “principal residence”

9. Why This Matters

These findings are not merely technical violations or paperwork errors. They represent potential breaches of:

Federal Mortgage Fraud Statutes: The handwritten modifications on mortgage documents, unit count misrepresentations, and principal residence declaration all potentially implicate 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (false statements to financial institutions).
New York State Financial Disclosure Laws: The pattern of missing, delayed, and misclassified mortgage reporting violates Public Officers Law § 73-a, which requires complete and accurate annual financial disclosures.
NYC Building Codes: The unresolved DOB violations and contradictory permit filings suggest non-compliance with city building codes over a period of decades.
State Residency Requirements: The Virginia principal residence declaration may violate NYS Public Officers Law § 30(1)(d), which requires the Attorney General to maintain New York residency.

Attorney General James has built her career on accountability and transparency, especially in her prosecution of Trump for financial misrepresentations. The documented patterns in her own financial and property dealings raise profound questions about whether she holds herself to the same standards she enforces on others.

As James herself stated when announcing the Trump case verdict: “The rule of law must apply equally to everyone.” The evidence presented here suggests that principle has not been consistently applied.

The ultimate question is not whether these discrepancies exist—the public record clearly shows they do. The question is whether accountability applies equally to those who wield the power of legal enforcement. Does the guardian of the law receive the same scrutiny she applies to others?

I will continue to investigate these issues and report on new findings as they emerge. True transparency demands nothing less.

Written by,

Sam Antar