The Timeline Defense Collapses Under Scrutiny: New Evidence Undermines Letitia James’ ‘Mistake’ Excuse

This report expands our investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James’ conflicting mortgage declarations—first exposed in our April 24, 2025 report.

Critical Timeline of Events

The Ongoing Investigation: Peeling Back the Layers

Investigative journalism is like peeling an onion—layer by layer, the truth gets harder to ignore. What started as a contradiction between two mortgage statements has become something more serious: evidence that suggests New York’s Attorney General knowingly signed false legal documents.

What began as a straightforward comparison of contradictory declarations has evolved into something more significant. By revisiting key evidence with fresh eyes and a deeper understanding of mortgage procedures, we’ve uncovered critical details initially overlooked. Each document, when placed in proper chronological context, tells a more troubling story than first appeared.

The most startling revelation? Attorney Abbe Lowell’s zealous defense letter, meant to exonerate James, has instead provided the very evidence that most powerfully incriminates her. In his rush to create a plausible narrative of innocent mistake, Lowell has unwittingly laid bare a chronology that makes the “mistake” defense not merely implausible but impossible. The very exhibits he confidently cites as proof of James’ innocence instead establish her prior knowledge and deliberate misrepresentation.

This investigation exemplifies the importance of returning to primary sources repeatedly, asking new questions, and challenging initial assumptions. Today’s revelations come not from new documents, but from a more careful examination of evidence that was hiding in plain sight all along – ironically, provided by James’ own legal team.

Background: A Federal Investigation Takes Shape

On April 14, 2025, U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte formally referred Attorney General Letitia James to the Department of Justice for potential criminal prosecution over alleged mortgage fraud. This wasn’t a routine referral – it came directly from the director of the agency responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

The FHFA’s criminal referral focused specifically on the 604 Sterling Street property in Norfolk, Virginia, which James purchased with her niece, Shamice Thompson-Hairston, in August 2023. The central allegation was clear: James falsely declared her intent to make it her “principal residence” to secure more favorable mortgage terms, despite being required by law to maintain her primary residence in New York as the state’s Attorney General.

Director Pulte’s referral stated:

“On August 17, 2023, Ms. James granted Ms. Shamice Thompson-Hairston power of attorney to make a Virginia property her ‘principal residence.’ And on August 30 and 31, 2023, through her attorney, Ms. James purchased this property in Norfolk, VA. In a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Form 3047 and in mortgage documents, she reaffirmed this would be her primary residence, despite being a statewide public office holder in the state of New York at that same time and primarily residing in the state of New York.”

The Trump Trial Context: A Critical Timeline

The timing of these events takes on additional significance when viewed against the backdrop of James’ own high-profile prosecution. On September 26, 2023 – just weeks after finalizing the mortgage for the Norfolk property – Judge Arthur Engoron issued a ruling finding that Trump had committed fraud by falsely inflating his assets. The full trial in Attorney General James’ $250 million civil fraud case began on October 2, 2023.

A central allegation in that case? That Trump had committed fraud by misrepresenting property values in financial statements submitted to lenders and insurers to obtain better terms and lower premiums – specifically, that Trump and his company “fraudulently manipulated the valuations of properties owned by the company to obtain better terms on loans and insurance and to lower their tax burdens.”

The irony? Just weeks after signing a sworn declaration she would make a Virginia property her principal residence—contradicted by her own prior statements—James launched a trial accusing Donald Trump of misrepresenting financial information for better loan terms. In February 2024, Judge Engoron ultimately ordered Trump to pay over $454 million, combining penalties and pre-judgment interest. This parallel raises serious questions about equal application of the law.

Abbe Lowell’s Defense Strategy

To defend James, attorney Abbe Lowell built a timeline meant to explain away the contradiction. But once we examine the actual dates, his story unravels completely.

On April 24, 2025, Lowell sent a response to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, dismissing the allegations as politically motivated and insisting the principal residence declaration was merely a “mistake” that had been corrected elsewhere in the mortgage documentation.

Lowell claims this timeline makes the principal residence declaration appear to be a simple error that James promptly fixed. The documents show something entirely different. Let’s examine his claims one by one:

Analysis of the First Claim

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.

What Lowell is inadvertently revealing is devastating to his defense: the documentation he claims “corrected” the “mistake” actually predates the alleged mistake by two weeks. In other words, James explicitly stated the property wouldn’t be her primary residence, then two weeks later declared in a sworn document that it would be – and then closed the mortgage with primary residence terms. As we’ll see, Lowell will attempt to flip this chronology by claiming a correction was made after the POA, but the evidence proves this “correction” was actually the same August 3 documentation that came before, not after, the contradictory declaration.

The Citation Trick That Unravels Everything

By citing “Id.”—a legal shorthand for “same source”—Lowell tries to suggest that James corrected the record after the Power of Attorney. But both documents he references are from August 3—two weeks *before* that POA was signed.

This careful 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

Our 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.

Let’s emphasize this key point: 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 examine the actual August 3rd email—the smoking gun that conclusively exposes this chronological sleight of hand.

Bombshell Visual Evidence: The August 3rd Email and Section 5 Form

Our acquisition of the August 3rd email referenced as “Exhibit A” in Lowell’s defense conclusively exposes this misrepresentation. 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.

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.

No Evidence of Any Post-POA Documentation

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.

The Procedural Impossibility

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.

That makes Lowell’s timeline not just wrong—it’s something that couldn’t even happen under normal mortgage procedures. 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.

The Mortgage Was Underwritten Based on the Sworn POA

The final proof against Lowell’s narrative comes from the closing documents themselves. 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 to establish the property as their principal residence:

“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.”

This language applies to both James and her niece as co-borrowers. There is no exception or special status for James as a non-occupying borrower. The mortgage closed with primary residence requirements for both parties – directly contradicting Lowell’s claim that the issue was “corrected” after the POA.

This confirms that the August 17 Power of Attorney declaring primary residence intent wasn’t a “mistake” – it was the operative legal document that governed the final terms of the loan.

Potential Defenses and Why They Fail

Legal Context: Mortgage Fraud Precedents

Summary: Why the Defense Fails

The evidence clearly exposes multiple fatal flaws in Lowell’s defense:

• The “correction” Lowell cites was made before the sworn POA, not after
• No post-POA document corrects the “mistake”
• The mortgage closed with primary residence terms
• Standard procedure makes Lowell’s timeline implausible
• The conduct mirrors what James accused Trump of: making false statements to gain favorable loan terms

Conclusion: Evidence of Knowledge and Intent

Lowell concludes his defense by stating: “If Ms. James’ declaration in her loan application from the time of the purchase was not enough, I hope this letter (and its exhibits) put this stale claim to rest.”

But his own evidence accomplishes the opposite. The timeline now confirms a sequence of events far more troubling than a simple mistake:

This isn’t an oversight. It was a deliberate choice—a legally binding declaration contradicted by prior records and rewarded with favorable mortgage terms. The same conduct James condemned in others. The documents don’t just raise questions. They answer them.

The principle that no one is above the law—especially those sworn to uphold it—demands these questions be answered. This case presents not just a question of one official’s conduct, but a test of our justice system’s integrity.

The Path Forward: Questions of Accountability

As this investigation continues to unfold, several critical questions remain:

1. Will the Department of Justice apply the same standards to the Attorney General that her office applied to others?
2. Does the “unclean hands” doctrine potentially undermine James’ prosecution of similar conduct?
3. Will mortgage regulators require remediation of the loan terms to match secondary residence rates?

The principle that no one is above the law—especially those sworn to uphold it—demands these questions be answered. This case presents not just a question of one official’s conduct, but a test of our justice system’s integrity.

Written by,

Sam Antar

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.