Dismantling Letitia James' False Defenses in Mortgage Fraud Case

New York Attorney General Letitia James is now under federal criminal investigation for allegedly making false statements to obtain a mortgage on a Virginia property she declared—under oath—as her “principal residence.” Most damning of all: after reviewing the documents yet again, we discovered that the declaration was witnessed by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy—the very same top deputy who oversaw the Trump fraud case. In official press materials from the case against Trump, the Attorney General’s office explicitly stated that the investigation was overseen by Levy. That property, 604 Sterling Street in Norfolk, stands at the center of a growing controversy that now includes sworn misstatements, ignored financial disclosure rules, and conflicting media narratives.

Add to that her long-documented pattern of misrepresenting her Brooklyn property at 296 Lafayette Avenue—and the result is a mounting body of evidence that mirrors the very types of fraud James has spent her career prosecuting. A substantial part of the referral relies on the research initially published on a blog, where inconsistencies in James’s mortgage, property declarations, and financial through the use of public records were highlighted.

The Virginia Declaration: Witnessed By Her Own Deputy

FHFA Allegation: “The U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency has referred evidence that Attorney General Letitia James made materially false statements in a mortgage application by declaring her intent to occupy a Norfolk, Virginia property as her principal residence while simultaneously serving as New York’s Attorney General.”

This formal allegation from FHFA aligns precisely with the documentary evidence. The timeline surrounding this declaration, and James’ conduct during that period, makes her intent—or lack of it—impossible to defend.

Perhaps most troubling of all, this sworn declaration wasn’t merely signed by James in isolation. It was officially witnessed by Jennifer Levy – her First Deputy Attorney General – the same senior official who was officially overseeing the Trump fraud case at that exact time. This wasn’t a low-level staffer but James’ top lieutenant, someone with intimate knowledge of both the legal standards for fraud and the ongoing Trump investigation.

This raises profound questions: How could James’ top deputy witness a document declaring Virginia as James’ principal residence while simultaneously overseeing a New York fraud case against Trump? Did Levy understand that her boss was making a declaration that could potentially vacate her office under New York law? The presence of Levy’s signature transforms this from a possible paperwork oversight into something that appears far more deliberate.

When confronted with evidence that she declared a Virginia property as her principal residence while serving as New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James’ office offered the weak defense that “her niece lives in the home as a primary residence and the AG has been clear that she is not using the Virginia home as her primary residence, because she lives in New York.”

This defense fails spectacularly when confronted with the actual documents. Let’s be absolutely clear about what happened here:

On August 17, 2023, James signed a Specific Power of Attorney (Instrument #230015686) with the declaration “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence” in capital letters.
This wasn’t buried in fine print or boilerplate language. It was a formal, affirmative statement under oath, notarized by New York notary public Elizabeth Rivasplata (License #01RI6373329), and filed in Norfolk land records.
The document was witnessed by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy and a New York state secretary named Marlene Tuitt, and officially notarized – making it impossible to claim this was an oversight or a document she didn’t personally review.

James now wants us to believe she never intended to live in Virginia despite explicitly declaring otherwise under oath. But the mortgage documents (Deed of Trust, Instrument #230015689) make it even worse:

Section 6 of the Deed of Trust explicitly requires: “Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days after the execution… and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower’s principal residence for at least one year.”
The document defines “Borrower” as “SHAMICE THOMPSON-HAIRSTON AND LETITIA A. JAMES” – making both parties jointly obligated to establish residency.
Section 8 warns that “Borrower shall be in default if… materially false, misleading, or inaccurate information or statements” are made “in connection with the Loan,” including regarding “Borrower’s occupancy of the Property as Borrower’s principal residence.”

Her “niece” defense actually proves she made a false declaration. If she never intended to occupy the property as her principal residence, why did she explicitly declare otherwise under oath? The niece’s occupancy doesn’t fulfill James’ personal obligation as co-borrower.

The Legal Corner James Painted Herself Into

New York law doesn’t concern itself with mere intentions to relocate. Public Officers Law § 30(1)(d) is triggered by the actual change of residency – “his ceasing to be an inhabitant of the state.” This means:

If James followed through on her sworn declaration and actually established Virginia residency (as required by the mortgage terms), she automatically vacated her New York office the moment she did so – regardless of whether she announced this publicly.
If she never established Virginia residency despite signing documents claiming she would, she appears to have made materially false statements to secure mortgage terms she wasn’t entitled to receive – potentially violating 18 U.S.C. § 1014.

This isn’t a political matter; it’s purely legal. The mortgage required James to establish Virginia residency by October 30, 2023 (60 days after execution). During that exact period, she was standing on the courthouse steps in Manhattan launching her civil fraud trial against Donald Trump on October 2, 2023.

The NY Post’s on-the-ground reporting confirmed this deception. Neighbors stated they’ve never seen James at the property, and reported that the current resident (supposedly her niece) only “moved in just a few months ago” – long after the required residency establishment period. As one neighbor put it: “It’s definitely not a year.”

The “Separate Form” Defense Collapses Under Scrutiny

The NY Times reported that “On a separate loan application form provided by the attorney general’s office, Ms. James indicated that she did not intend to occupy the property as a primary residence.” Note the key detail here: James’ office themselves provided this alleged document to the Times. However, the Times never actually showed this alleged form or quoted directly from it – they merely reported its existence based on claims from James’ office without independent verification. Despite James’ office providing this document to the Times, no journalist or member of the public has been permitted to view this purported document.

This defense is nonsensical for several reasons:

The NY Times never actually showed this alleged “separate form” or quoted directly from it. They merely reported its supposed existence based on James’ office’s claims.
A notarized, publicly recorded declaration cannot be nullified by a contradictory internal form. At best, such a form would prove James made inconsistent statements – which only strengthens the fraud case.
Even if such a form exists, it wasn’t recorded with the mortgage in the official land records. Only the documents declaring her intent to establish principal residency were recorded – the ones that secured more favorable loan terms.
Having contradictory forms is a red flag for mortgage fraud, not a defense. It suggests James was telling different stories to different parties about the same transaction.

While the Virginia property allegations alone present serious concerns, they appear to be part of a broader pattern of property misrepresentations spanning multiple properties and decades. The same troubling approach to property documentation is evident in James’ handling of her Brooklyn residence.

The Brooklyn Property: A Documented Pattern of Misrepresentation

FHFA Allegation: “Records indicate Attorney General James appears to have misrepresented the legal classification of her Brooklyn property at 296 Lafayette Avenue, declaring it as a four-unit dwelling despite Certificate of Occupancy documentation classifying it as a five-unit property, potentially to secure more favorable financing terms.”

Federal housing authorities have identified what our investigation confirms. But this wasn’t an isolated misstatement. Public records show a recurring pattern of real estate misrepresentation going back two decades.

James’ problems extend beyond the Virginia residence. Her office claimed: “The Attorney General has been clear in her financial filings that this is a 4 unit, owner-occupied building. The previous Certificate of Occupancy from January 2001 that lists it as a 5 unit building was filed by the previous owner before the Attorney General owned the home.”

This defense is deliberately misleading:

A Certificate of Occupancy is not “filed by the owner” – it’s issued by the NYC Department of Buildings after official inspection, making it the definitive legal classification of the property.
The Certificate of Occupancy declaring the property a five-unit dwelling was issued in January 2001, and James purchased it just weeks later in February 2001. This wasn’t some outdated historical document but the current legal classification at the time of purchase.
The five-unit classification carries significant financial implications. As the NY Post explained: “A dwelling with five or more units can only qualify for commercial loans under federal funding standards, meaning she likely would have gotten a better mortgage rate by representing the home as only containing four.”
James “said on both the deed and mortgage that it only has four” units – showing a deliberate pattern of misrepresenting the property’s official classification to secure financial advantages.

This isn’t a one-time paperwork error. It’s a consistent, decades-long pattern of misrepresentations that secured financial advantages – exactly what James prosecuted Trump for.

Financial Disclosure Failures

FHFA Allegation: “The investigation further identified apparent failures to disclose the $219,780 mortgage obligation on the Virginia property in mandatory financial disclosure filings, which would constitute a violation of New York Public Officers Law § 73-a if the property does not qualify for the personal residence exemption.”

This official finding highlights yet another area where James appears to have violated the law. The $219,780 mortgage for the Virginia property doesn’t appear on James’ 2023 New York Financial Disclosure Statement, despite legal requirements to report all debts over $10,000 unless the property is a solely owned personal residence. This property doesn’t qualify for the exemption because:

It’s co-owned with her niece, not solely owned
It’s not her personal residence (by her own current admission)

According to the 2023 FDS Guide (Question 17), primary or secondary residences don’t need to be disclosed – unless they are co-owned with someone other than a relative. But the exemption for omitting mortgage debt only applies if the home is her sole personal residence – which it clearly is not, based on her own filings and co-occupant structure.

This omission likely violates Public Officers Law § 73-a – and follows a familiar pattern of failure to disclose required debt that James has demonstrated throughout her career.

The “Political Weaponization” Defense Is a Desperate Deflection

Unable to address the documentary evidence, James’ office resorted to political deflection: “Donald Trump’s weaponization of the federal government continues to careen out of control — and now they are using cherry-picked information to attack the Attorney General.”

This isn’t about politics – it’s about documents with James’ own signature, filed in public records. The evidence is:

James’ own sworn declaration in a notarized document
The explicit requirements in the mortgage she signed
The official Certificate of Occupancy for her Brooklyn property
Her missing financial disclosures

These aren’t “cherry-picked” facts but a comprehensive pattern of material misrepresentations spanning multiple properties and decades. The NY Post independently verified with multiple neighbors that they’ve never seen James at the Virginia property, proving her sworn declaration was false.

The Ultimate Hypocrisy

The irony is inescapable. James built her career on prosecuting others for the exact behavior she’s now accused of. She famously declared “no one is above the law” while accusing Trump of inflating property values for financial gain – then apparently did the same herself.

When the NY Post asked Michael Henry (who ran against James in 2022) about the case, he perfectly captured the hypocrisy: “No one is above the law. James has not denied the legitimacy of the documents. It should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law.”

If we apply the “Letitia James standard” to Letitia James herself, the conclusion is inescapable: she appears to have made false declarations about her properties to secure financial advantages, failed to disclose required financial information, and is now attempting to deflect and deny rather than address the substance of the allegations.

The Silence Speaks Volumes

When confronted with these allegations, James chose to hide rather than defend herself. The NY Post reported she “dodged reporters’ questions outside her Brooklyn home Wednesday morning.”

For an official who has built her career on aggressive prosecution and public declarations about transparency and accountability, this silence speaks volumes. If these allegations were baseless political attacks, why not directly address them? Why not show reporters the “separate form” the NY Times vaguely referenced?

The documentary evidence is overwhelming, the explanations are contradictory, and the silence is deafening. The Federal Housing Finance Agency was right to refer this matter to the Department of Justice. The question now is whether the same legal standard James has applied to others will be applied to her.

As James herself would say: No one is above the law.

She was lying then and lying now to cover up her crimes. The question is no longer whether Letitia James misrepresented her property holdings—it’s whether those misrepresentations will finally be held to the same legal standard she demands of others.

Written by,

Sam Antar