Debunking Letitia James’ “mistake” defense

Timeline of a Falsehood

The Power of Attorney Was Central, Not Peripheral

Mr. Lowell calls the August 17, 2023 Power of Attorney a “mistake.” But this document was:

• Sworn and notarized
• Explicit in its principal residence declaration
• Recorded with the mortgage
• Never corrected or amended in any way

This wasn’t boilerplate. It was material to the underwriting process.

Lowell asserts that the mortgage application only required one person—Shamice Thompson-Hairston—to occupy the property. Even if true, that does not negate the fact that James swore under oath that she herself would be occupying it as her principal residence. That false declaration was relied upon to authorize the mortgage under more favorable terms. It was not superseded by private email exchanges or unrecorded forms.

At the end of the day, the mortgage was underwritten and approved on the basis that both borrowers—Letitia James and her niece—would occupy the property as their primary residence, a requirement reflected not just in the loan terms but explicitly in the recorded Power of Attorney that authorized the transaction.

Knowing Misrepresentation, Not Error

Lowell cites James’ August 2, 2023 email stating, “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence” as proof of innocent intent. But this actually confirms:

• James knew on August 2 she wouldn’t live there
• She swore otherwise under penalty of perjury on August 17
• That declaration enabled the mortgage to close

This isn’t confusion—it’s calculated misrepresentation.

Moreover, despite Lowell’s claim that James filled out a Uniform Residential Loan Application stating “NO” to primary residence occupancy, no document was submitted with his letter to show that her sworn POA was ever retracted, amended, or disavowed prior to the loan closing. The POA was recorded and actively used to bind the mortgage transaction. That makes it controlling.

Why It Matters: Mortgage Fraud 101

Declaring a property as a principal residence materially impacts financing terms:

• Interest rates (typically 0.5-0.75% lower for owner-occupied properties)
• Down payment requirements (as low as 3% vs. 15–25% for investment properties)
• Qualification criteria (more favorable debt-to-income ratios for primary residences)
• Underwriting standards (less stringent for owner-occupied homes)

On a $219,780 mortgage, these differences translate to thousands of dollars in financial benefit obtained through a false sworn statement.

Swearing falsely on occupancy status is a textbook violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1014, which criminalizes false statements made to obtain a mortgage from a federally insured lender.

Lowell’s Letter to Bondi Falls Apart

Emails can’t override a notarized, recorded document. That POA was the legal instrument used to close the mortgage. Period.

Mr. Lowell suggests the loan application marking “NO” for primary residence somehow negates the false sworn statement. This fundamentally misunderstands mortgage law:

• The Power of Attorney was a SWORN statement made explicitly to facilitate the transaction
• The Form 1003 loan application is merely informational
• The Power of Attorney, as the instrument of transaction, legally supersedes other documentation
• The conflicting documentation creates material ambiguity that would typically trigger investigation in ordinary cases

No Corrective Documentation Appears in the Record

Despite Lowell’s claim that the POA was “erroneous,” the record shows:

• No corrected or amended Power of Attorney was ever executed
• No addendum clarifying the occupancy status was recorded
• No subsequent legal documentation acknowledges or corrects this “error”
• No notice to the lender documenting the “mistake” appears in the record

Standard mortgage practice requires correcting material errors in transaction documents – especially those affecting loan terms. The absence of any corrective documentation is telling.

The Legal Exposure Is Real

• 18 U.S.C. § 1014 – Mortgage fraud
• New York Public Officers Law § 30(1)(d) – Loss of office for out-of-state residency
• Perjury – Sworn false statements

The Second Virginia Property: Pattern of Mortgage Non-Disclosure

Mr. Lowell’s letter completely ignores evidence regarding James’ first Virginia property at 3121 Peronne Avenue, purchased in August 2020 for $137,000. This omission is telling, as it reveals a pattern of mortgage non-disclosure and contradictory property classifications:

• Public records confirm James obtained a $109,600 mortgage from OVM Financial
• The mortgage included a “Second Home Rider” indicating non-investment intent
• Yet in her financial disclosures in NY State, James listed the property as an “investment” while failing to disclose the OVM mortgage
• In her 2023 disclosure, James reported two different mortgages (Freedom Mortgage and National Mortgage) that cannot be found in any property records

These mortgages would represent up to $400,000 in debt against a property she valued at no more than $150,000—a loan-to-value ratio of over 250% that defies standard lending practices.

The Brooklyn Property: Certificate of Occupancy vs. Self-Serving Misrepresentations

Mr. Lowell’s defense of the Brooklyn property discrepancy is perhaps his most brazen attempt at misdirection. He claims the property “has always functioned as a four-person residence” and dismisses the Certificate of Occupancy as a “24-year-old” document. Let’s set the record straight:

• The Certificate of Occupancy was issued on January 26, 2001 – just two weeks before James purchased the property on February 14, 2001
• This Certificate of Occupancy isn’t some ancient relic – it was brand new when James bought the property
• Under New York law, the Certificate of Occupancy is the controlling legal document that determines a property’s lawful use – not tax designations or HPD records
• Occupying a building in a manner inconsistent with its Certificate of Occupancy is a direct violation of New York building codes

Lowell wants us to believe James has been innocently living in a “four-unit” building for 24 years. But if that’s true, why did she never file for an amended Certificate of Occupancy? The answer is simple: Changing the designation would require inspections, compliance with current codes, and substantial documentation. It was far more convenient to maintain the fiction of a four-unit building while benefiting from the legal existence of a fifth unit.

The HAMP Modification: Fraudulent Eligibility

The most damning evidence comes from James’ 2011 Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) agreement. This federal program explicitly limits eligibility to properties with four or fewer units. James was facing a clear problem: her property’s legal Certificate of Occupancy clearly stated five units, making her ineligible for HAMP assistance.

The solution? Mysterious handwritten modifications:

• Handwritten notation “4 fam” appears in the corner of the document
• Another handwritten clause inserted: “not more than 6 residential units” – creating deliberate ambiguity
• A third notation “By assignment dated 8/23/11 – to be recorded simultaneously herewith” suggests retroactive alterations

These aren’t innocent clarifications – they’re calculated alterations designed to maintain HAMP eligibility while creating plausible deniability about the property’s true classification. The conflicting statements (4 units vs. “not more than 6”) reveal the true intent: to obscure rather than clarify.

This isn’t about how the property “functioned” – it’s about how it was legally classified at the precise moment James sought federal assistance under a program she didn’t qualify for. The HAMP guidelines don’t ask how many people live in a building; they ask how many legal units exist. And the answer, according to the only legal document that matters, was five.

The Queens Property: Early Pattern of Relationship Misrepresentation

While the deed for the 1983 Queens property correctly identifies James as her father’s daughter, Lowell ignores mortgage documents from the same transaction where James and her father represented themselves as “husband and wife”—a relationship classification that potentially conferred financial advantages in obtaining the loan.

This early instance establishes a pattern that continues through subsequent property transactions—suggesting a long-term approach to convenient misrepresentation when financially advantageous.

Broader Pattern of Financial Disclosure Failures

Mortgage Reporting Inconsistencies

James’ financial disclosure statements reveal persistent irregularities:

• A Citibank HELOC recorded in August 2019 was not disclosed until 2022, then mysteriously disappeared from her 2023 disclosure
• A Citizens Bank mortgage recorded in July 2021 wasn’t disclosed that year, appeared as a mortgage in 2022, then was inexplicably reclassified as a home equity loan in 2023
• The First Savings Bank loan has appeared in her Brooklyn property disclosures since 2020 but cannot be found in any property records

This shifting classification scheme obscures the true nature of her liabilities and creates a confusing paper trail that’s difficult to track.

Rental Income Reporting Issues

In 2013, Crain’s New York reported that then-Councilwoman James had failed to disclose rental income from her Brooklyn property for years—despite public voter registrations showing tenants lived there. When finally filing a correction, she understated her actual rental income of $44,400, reporting it instead in the “$5,000-$43,999.99” range.

For her 604 Sterling Street Virginia property, James initially reported rental income in 2020, then reported zero income in subsequent years despite maintaining ownership and claiming new mortgage liabilities—an unlikely economic scenario that raises questions about accurate reporting.

Taxpayer-Funded Private Jet Travel

Mr. Lowell’s letter completely ignores documented evidence that between 2020-2021, the Attorney General’s Office spent $41,807.80 on private jet charters through Venture Jets Inc., with several flights coinciding with James’ campaign activities:

• 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 James was described 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

No passenger manifests, flight itineraries, or formal justifications for these flights appear in public records, raising questions about their official purpose.

Selective Enforcement of Building Codes

Mr. Lowell fails to address how a complaint about the discrepancy between James’ Brooklyn property’s Certificate of Occupancy (five units) and her permit applications (claiming four units) was dismissed as a “MINOR ERROR” by the Department of Buildings. For ordinary New Yorkers, such discrepancies trigger immediate consequences:

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

This selective enforcement raises serious questions about preferential treatment for public officials.

Written by,

Sam Antar

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.