Her “Outrageous Government Conduct” Motion Demands Discovery That Will Prove Systematic Fraud
On November 7, 2025, Letitia James filed a motion to dismiss her federal indictment claiming “insufficient evidence,” “no probable cause,” and “absence of evidence.”
Four amicus briefs followed, all repeating the same claim: career prosecutors properly reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to prosecute.
One week later, on November 14, her own lawyers accidentally revealed that the government has produced 115,000 pages of evidence requiring a two-week extension just to process.
Three days after that—on November 17—James filed yet another motion to dismiss, this time for “outrageous government conduct.”
To understand what just happened, you need to know three key players: The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is the federal regulator that oversees Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae is the government-sponsored enterprise that bought James’s mortgage and conducted fraud investigations. Nationstar Mortgage (doing business as Mr. Cooper) is the mortgage servicer that formally reported James’s loan as fraudulent to Fannie Mae.
James has now filed THREE motions in 10 days:
- Nov 7: Claims prosecution is politically motivated
- Nov 14: Requests extension—accidentally reveals 115,000 pages of evidence
- Nov 17: Claims outrageous government conduct—demands more discovery
This article focuses on the Nov 17 motion and what it reveals.
And in doing so, she just made a catastrophic strategic error.
She didn’t file a motion — she filed a confession that she knows the evidence is real.
The more motions she files, the more evidence she admits exists.
She’s demanding that prosecutors produce the exact evidence that will prove her guilt.
The Receipts:
- 40 years of public records documenting systematic fraud
- 115,000 pages of federal evidence requiring two-week extension to process
- Mandatory Lender Self-Report to Fannie Mae: “Category: FRAUD | Origination Fraud | Occupancy Fraud – Second Home”
What James’s New Motion Claims
James’s Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct makes explosive allegations:
- Bill Pulte illegally accessed her mortgage files from Fannie Mae’s database
- Pulte fired FHFA ethics investigators who complained about his access
- Pulte fired the Acting Inspector General (Joe Allen) who turned over internal complaints to prosecutors
- Fannie Mae employees found “insufficient evidence” but Pulte pushed the investigation anyway
- The FHFA criminal referral was based on my blog posts, not legitimate investigation
Her motion specifically attacks me:
“Many of the exhibits referenced in the referral were available from a single source (which also contains the only ‘reporting’ on the allegations that predate the referral letter): the blog of a right-wing ‘investigator,’ Sam Antar, who has claimed credit for providing Director Pulte with the facts necessary for the criminal referral.”
When a state Attorney General’s best argument is “a blogger noticed,” you know the evidence is bad.
Let me address that directly.
But first, let me show you the most devastating evidence in James’s own motion.
The Smoking Gun James Attached to Her Own Motion
Before we get to James’s attacks on me and the investigation, look at what she attached as Exhibit F to prove the investigation found “insufficient evidence.”
This is not Fannie Mae’s opinion. This is a mandatory Lender Self-Report—a formal regulatory filing where the mortgage servicer officially reports fraud to Fannie Mae.
From the May 14, 2025 Lender Self-Report (Document 109-6, Exhibit F in James’s own motion):
“MRC reviewed FNMA’s Selling guide dating back to 2019, prior to loan execution date, and there was no evidence to suggest James received favorable pricing or Loan To Value (LTV) for a second home compared to an investment property since the subject loan LTV was 80%.”
“MRC reviewed the mortgage payment history to determine whether mortgage payments were submitted by Thompson or another third party. The payments appeared to be from the same checking account utilized by James at time loan origination for asset verification; Citibank account number [REDACTED]. Thus, James appeared to be the only person making payments to MRC.”
“As a result, MRC is reporting James for suspicion of misrepresentation of occupancy in connection with the subject loan. However, given the date of loan origination from 2020 and limited access to utilities associated with the subject property, this cannot be unconfirmed.”
“Individual believed to be involved, Letitia James”
Deficiency Issue: Fraud
Category: Fraud
Sub Category: Origination Fraud
Defect: Occupancy Fraud – Second Home
This is Fannie Mae’s hierarchical fraud classification system. Each level drills down from broad to specific: (1) Deficiency Issue: FRAUD – the top-level problem, (2) Category: Fraud – confirmed as fraud not error, (3) Sub Category: Origination Fraud – occurred at loan application, (4) Defect: Occupancy Fraud – Second Home – specific type of fraud committed.
They didn’t code this as a clerical error or a “potential issue.” In Fannie Mae’s fraud taxonomy it is classified as Fraud → Origination Fraud → Occupancy Fraud – Second Home. The narrative uses the standard phrase “suspicion of misrepresentation,” but the QC outcome is a formal fraud classification that triggers Fannie Mae’s defect and repurchase framework.
This is not an opinion—it’s a mandatory regulatory report.
Under Fannie Mae guidelines, when a lender’s Quality Control review identifies loan defects that make a loan “ineligible as delivered to Fannie Mae,” the lender must formally report to Fannie Mae within 30 days.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Mr. Cooper) completed their QC review and filed this Lender Self-Report on May 14, 2025, formally notifying Fannie Mae that James’s loan contains origination fraud and triggers buyback requirements.
This is the mortgage industry equivalent of a mandatory federal fraud escalation—the step just before a buyback demand.
This wasn’t Fannie Mae speculating. This was a federally regulated servicer filing a fraud report under penalty of federal repurchase obligations. If Nationstar is wrong about the fraud classification, they owe Fannie Mae money. They don’t file these reports lightly.
Read that again.
James filed a motion claiming career prosecutors and Fannie Mae employees found “insufficient evidence” and “no probable cause.”
Then she attached an exhibit where her mortgage servicer formally classified her case as FRAUD and reported it to Fannie Mae as required by regulation.
Not “potential issue.” Not “requires further review.” Not “insufficient evidence.”
FRAUD. Origination Fraud. Occupancy Fraud.
What did Nationstar Mortgage/Mr. Cooper (MRC) find?
- James appeared to be the only person making mortgage payments (from her Citibank account)
- Despite claiming Thompson occupied the property, payments came from James’s account
- Only one occupant since October 2020: Nakia Moni Thompson
- Thompson previously lived at James’s Brooklyn address (2015-2017)
- Property insurance changed from owner-occupied to landlord policy (January 2024)
- This constituted occupancy fraud requiring formal report to Fannie Mae
The report doesn’t say “insufficient evidence.”
It says: FRAUD. Origination Fraud. Occupancy Fraud – Second Home.
The note stating “this cannot be unconfirmed” refers to limited access to utility records for verification—not a finding that fraud didn’t occur. The statement means they cannot definitively confirm all details due to limited utility access, but they are still formally reporting the case as fraud based on the totality of evidence available.
Her own exhibit lists her under “Individual believed to be involved: Letitia James.” That’s not a political conspiracy. That’s her being the suspect.
This is a non-political mortgage servicing company conducting a mandatory Quality Control review, formally classifying the loan as fraudulent, and filing a regulatory report with Fannie Mae as required by federal guidelines.
James’s own exhibit proves the investigation found fraud, not insufficient evidence.
Keep that in mind as we examine the rest of her motion.
Setting the Record Straight
I am not “right-wing.” I’m a registered Democrat who doesn’t support Donald Trump. I’ve never hidden this. I investigate fraud regardless of politics.
In fact, Eric Trump blocked me years ago when I mocked him for being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple. If I’m supposedly a “right-wing investigator” working to help Trump, someone forgot to tell his son.
I’ve spent years battling right-wing figures like Patrick Byrne, former CEO of Overstock.com, over financial reporting improprieties. Byrne is a prominent Trump supporter and election conspiracy theorist. I’ve criticized his accounting practices relentlessly—hardly the behavior of a “right-wing” ally.
They call me “right-wing” because saying “he was correct” is too painful.
But here’s the critical contradiction in James’s motion: The defense simultaneously argues that the evidence came from my “fringe” blog and that Director Pulte must have used secret, unlawful means to obtain it. It can’t be both.
James’s own motion admits: “Many of the exhibits referenced in the referral were available from a single source… the blog of a right-wing ‘investigator,’ Sam Antar…”
That admission destroys their “unlawful access” claim. If the evidence was publicly available on my blog—which analyzed public records anyone could obtain—then Pulte didn’t need to “unlawfully access” anything. He could have simply read my published forensic analysis and verified it using FHFA’s legitimate access to Fannie Mae’s loan files.
The motion proves Pulte had a non-outrageous alternative source: my published investigations of public records.
I didn’t “provide Director Pulte with facts.” I published forensic investigations using exclusively public records from February through June 2025. The FHFA reviewed my published work, verified it independently using their access to Fannie Mae’s loan files, and issued a criminal referral.
That’s not “outrageous government conduct.” That’s how fraud investigations work.
The fraud was documented in public records long before any political involvement. Every document I cited is available to anyone. Title searches. Property records. Mortgage documents. Financial disclosure statements. Certificate of Occupancy records.
Documents don’t lie. Even when you wish they did.
If exposing your own filings makes me “fringe,” what does that make the person who signed them?
Why Did They Attack Me Personally?
Because when the documents are indefensible, the only thing left is to attack the person who found them.
When your own motion validates the evidence you swore didn’t exist, you’re not attacking me — you’re corroborating me.
The Trap James Just Walked Into
Here’s where James’s motion becomes a strategic disaster.
She’s demanding that Judge Walker order prosecutors to produce:
• Any internal complaints filed against Director Pulte related to AG James
• All documents bearing a “FM_EDVA_122_” Bates stamp, including:
- FM_EDVA_122_0000015–FM_EDVA_122_0000023
- FM_EDVA_122_0000042–FM_EDVA_122_0000055
- FM_EDVA_122_0000099–FM_EDVA_122_0000107
- FM_EDVA_122_0000113–FM_EDVA_122_0000125
- FM_EDVA_122_0000144–FM_EDVA_122_0000155
- FM_EDVA_122_0000574–FM_EDVA_122_0000579
Think about what this means.
James is ADMITTING these documents exist. She’s not saying “these documents don’t exist” or “the investigation never happened.” She’s demanding to see specific Bates-stamped discovery that she knows prosecutors have.
A defendant who thinks the investigation is fake doesn’t demand to see the file numbers.
James is REQUESTING an evidentiary hearing. From her motion: “AG James respectfully requests that the Court issue an order dismissing the indictment with prejudice for outrageous government conduct, or, in the alternative, issue an order granting discovery concerning the government’s outrageous government conduct, and an evidentiary hearing regarding the same.”
She wants evidence presented in open court.
Let me translate what she’s actually asking for:
“Your Honor, please make the government show everyone what their investigation found. I’m confident it will prove they had no legitimate basis to investigate me.”
Okay. Let’s do that.
What Those Documents Will Show
James’s motion cherry-picks one quote from Fannie Mae’s Director of Mortgage Fraud Investigations, Sean Soward, who wrote on June 13, 2025: “the LJ case is certainly not clear and convincing evidence” of fraud.
Her motion presents this as proof the investigation lacked merit.
But look at the full context from the discovery James already received.
Sean Soward’s June 13, 2025 email (Exhibit G in James’s own motion):
“no. occupancy fraud does not ever get deemed clear and convincing evidence as a stand alone finding.”
Read that carefully. Soward isn’t saying there’s insufficient evidence of fraud. He’s saying occupancy fraud alone doesn’t meet the “clear and convincing” standard AS A STANDALONE FINDING.
That’s a legal threshold issue—not a finding that no fraud occurred.
Soward was not making a finding of fact — he was stating the civil standard Fannie Mae uses internally to buy back bad loans.
And here’s what James’s motion conveniently omits from that same email chain:
Just minutes after Soward said occupancy fraud doesn’t meet “clear and convincing evidence as a standalone finding,” he added critical clarification:
“I also want to clarify occupancy and clear and convincing evidence. We used to deem stand alone occupancy as clear and convincing in certain circumstances, but Marcus gave us updated guidance that it wasn’t appropriate so we ceased doing that… a couple years ago.”
Jennifer Horne responded: “that makes sense – occupancy is really tricky”
Soward then concluded: “yes. and the LJ case is certainly not clear and convincing evidence”
Notice the context James’s motion deliberately obscured:
- Soward wasn’t saying there’s no fraud—he was explaining Fannie Mae’s internal threshold for loan buybacks
- The “clear and convincing” standard is for civil repurchase decisions, not criminal prosecutions
- Horne immediately responded by asking “is the landlord policy in the file”—she wasn’t abandoning the investigation, she was gathering more documentation
- Later that same evening, Horne asked for verification of Thompson’s occupancy, and Soward provided LexisNexis reports showing continuous residence from October 2020
This isn’t investigators finding insufficient evidence. This is investigators carefully building a comprehensive case while following proper internal protocols.
The email chain shows exactly what prosecutors would want to see: professional fraud investigators discussing evidentiary standards, gathering documentation, coordinating with other departments (LQC for “rep and warrant purposes”), consulting with Privacy counsel about redactions, and independently verifying facts through public records.
And notice what Jennifer Horne (Fannie Mae VP of Financial Crimes) immediately asks in response:
“is the landlord policy in the file”
Horne is asking about the landlord insurance policy—documentation that the property was being treated as a rental, which directly contradicts James’s sworn statement that she would occupy it as a second home.
They’re building the case. They’re gathering documentation. They’re following the evidence.
This isn’t “insufficient evidence.” This is professional investigators doing their job.
The email chain also shows Fannie Mae coordinating with multiple departments: their Financial Crimes Investigation Team, Loan Quality Control Services (LQCS), Privacy, and Legal Counsel. Soward notes they met with Privacy to discuss redaction requirements and were advised to “get counsel opinion.” This is exactly the kind of interdepartmental coordination and legal caution you’d expect in a legitimate, thorough investigation—not a political hit job.
And here’s why Soward’s “standalone finding” comment is a separate question from the prosecution:
Soward wasn’t making a finding that “no fraud occurred”—he was applying Fannie Mae’s internal clear and convincing standard for loan repurchase decisions. That’s a separate civil-exposure question from whether there’s enough evidence to prove criminal fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors aren’t relying on occupancy fraud “as a standalone finding.” They’re presenting:
- The Second Home Rider James signed (the contract she breached)
- The landlord insurance policy James obtained in January 2024, converting the property from owner-occupied to rental status and directly contradicting her sworn second home declaration
- Financial calculations from Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes team quantifying the fraud (Exhibit I in James’s own motion)
- James’s tax returns reporting rental income while declaring “zero personal use days”
- Thompson’s Instagram posts documenting full-time occupancy, including an October 18, 2017 post where Thompson referred to James as “AUNT TISH,” writing: “I would like to give a special birthday shout out to a Special Strong Successful hardworking… Beautiful Black Woman my AUNT TISH!!” This post was included in Fannie Mae’s investigation file as Exhibit E, documenting the familial relationship.
- Mortgage payment records from James’s Citibank account, not Thompson’s
- The pattern of fraud across other properties (Brooklyn, Sterling Street, Queens)
By definition, this is NOT a “standalone” case. Soward’s statement actually supports the prosecution’s approach: don’t rely on occupancy alone—build a comprehensive case with multiple types of evidence.
That’s exactly what prosecutors did.
What James’s Motion Accidentally Reveals
James’s motion includes another smoking gun—one that proves the investigation was thorough and evidence-driven, not a political hit job.
From the motion (page 12, Exhibit I – Pulte’s financial calculations):
“On October 6, 2025, [Pulte] sent a private letter to Ms. Halligan providing a summary of information and financial calculations on the Peronne Property, including ‘additional information from Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Investigation Team regarding the prior Criminal Referral’ of AG James.”
James includes this to prove coordination between Pulte and prosecutors.
But what it actually proves is that Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Investigation Team conducted an ongoing investigation that generated additional information beyond the April 2025 criminal referral.
Professional fraud investigators. Doing analysis. Generating reports. Following the evidence.
And here’s the detail James probably wishes she hadn’t included:
The indictment against James uses “the exact calculations Director Pulte had sent to Ms. Halligan just a few days prior.”
Why would that be?
Because Fannie Mae’s fraud investigators did the math on the financial benefit James obtained through her false statements.
The indictment charges that James’s misrepresentations resulted in an artificially low interest rate that saved her approximately $18,933 over the life of the loan.
Pulte sent those calculations to prosecutors. Prosecutors verified them. The grand jury heard the evidence. The indictment reflects the actual financial harm.
That’s not political coordination. That’s sharing forensic analysis of financial fraud.
The “Insufficient Evidence” That Keeps Growing
Let’s recap what James has now admitted exists:
From her November 14 discovery motion:
- 17,000+ documents
- 115,000+ pages of evidence
- 5 production volumes
- Nearly 2 terabytes of data in the latest batch alone
From her November 17 outrageous conduct motion:
- FHFA criminal referral (April 14, 2025)
- Ongoing FHFA and Fannie Mae investigation (April-August 2025)
- Internal FHFA Inspector General investigation into Pulte’s access
- Fannie Mae Financial Crimes Investigation Team reports
- Mandatory Lender Self-Report formally classifying the loan as fraud (May 14, 2025)
- Specific Bates-stamped documents (FM_EDVA_122_…) she’s now demanding
- Calculations from Fannie Mae’s fraud investigators quantifying financial harm
And all of this is in addition to:
- 40 years of public records proving systematic fraud
- 8 months of published forensic investigations (February-June 2025) by independent researchers
- FHFA criminal referral citing systematic fraud
- 5-month FBI investigation with subpoena power
- Federal subpoena of five years of financial disclosures (return date December 5, 2025)
You don’t need two weeks to review “insufficient evidence.”
You don’t demand specific Bates-stamped discovery if the investigation was baseless.
You don’t request an evidentiary hearing if you’re afraid of what the evidence will show.
What James Is Really Arguing
Strip away the legal rhetoric and here’s what James’s motion actually says:
“Bill Pulte shouldn’t have believed Sam Antar’s forensic analysis of public records. The fact that Fannie Mae verified it using their loan files doesn’t make it legitimate. The fact that FBI agents investigated for five months doesn’t matter. The fact that career prosecutors are now producing 115,000 pages of evidence doesn’t prove anything. This is all political.”
That’s not a legal defense. That’s a confession that the fraud is so well-documented that the only remaining strategy is to attack the investigators’ motives.
But motive doesn’t change facts.
The phantom mortgages still don’t exist in property records.
The undisclosed properties are still undisclosed.
The contradictory sworn statements still contradict each other.
The mathematical impossibilities still violate the laws of arithmetic.
And the 40-year pattern still predates any alleged political motivation by decades.
The Soward emails show professional investigators doing their job—building a comprehensive case, coordinating across departments, and following proper protocols. But there’s another figure in James’s motion who raises very different questions.
The Inspector General James Doesn’t Want to Discuss
James’s motion claims Bill Pulte fired Acting Inspector General Joe Allen to cover up misconduct.
Her version: Allen found evidence that Pulte improperly accessed James’s loan files, turned it over to prosecutors as required, and was fired for doing his job.
But consider an alternative interpretation:
Allen didn’t just turn over documents as part of routine IG duties. He specifically labeled internal process complaints as “constitutionally required” discovery material AFTER the criminal referral was made, knowing this would create Brady obligations for prosecutors. He then went to reporters to create a public narrative of prosecutorial misconduct.
Think about what that means:
Allen knew the investigation was proceeding. He knew internal ethics investigators had complaints about Pulte’s procedures. He could have simply documented them in an internal report. Instead, he turned those complaints over to prosecutors with the explicit label that they were “constitutionally required” for discovery—the precise language that triggers Brady obligations.
This wasn’t cautious compliance with constitutional obligations. This was an attempt to manufacture exculpatory material from process complaints.
Pulte fired him—and whether that was to cover up misconduct or because Allen was actively trying to sabotage the prosecution by creating defense ammunition depends on what those documents actually contain.
If that’s what happened, here’s the devastating, unavoidable irony:
Even with Allen actively trying to create Brady material for James’s defense, prosecutors STILL haven’t produced them under Brady.
Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors are constitutionally required to produce evidence that’s favorable to the defense. If Allen’s documents showed Pulte acted improperly, showed the investigation was illegitimate, or showed weak evidence of fraud, prosecutors would be required to hand them over immediately.
The fact that prosecutors haven’t produced them despite Allen’s efforts tells you everything:
The complaints don’t help James.
They likely show exactly what James doesn’t want revealed: ethics investigators objected to Pulte’s investigation on procedural grounds (Did he follow internal rules? Did he have proper authority?) but couldn’t challenge the substantive evidence of fraud.
The fact that prosecutors reviewed Allen’s carefully labeled “constitutionally required” complaints and determined they don’t meet the Brady standard tells you everything: Process objections don’t erase substantive evidence of fraud.
Process complaints don’t erase evidence.
If internal FHFA employees thought Pulte violated agency procedures by accessing loan files, that’s a personnel matter. It doesn’t make the phantom mortgages reappear in property records. It doesn’t make the contradictory sworn statements consistent. It doesn’t make the mathematical impossibilities possible.
James is now demanding Judge Walker order production of documents that her own ally tried to create as Brady material—and even then, they don’t meet the Brady standard.
That should tell you how weak her procedural defense actually is.
What Discovery Will Reveal
If Judge Walker grants James’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, here’s what will be presented in open court:
The FHFA Criminal Referral (April 14, 2025):
- What evidence the referral cited
- Which public records it referenced
- What analysis FHFA conducted
- Whether the referral was based on “media reports” or forensic investigation
The Fannie Mae Investigation (April-August 2025):
- What Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Investigation Team found
- What loan files they reviewed
- What calculations they performed
- What reports they generated
The Lender Self-Report (May 14, 2025):
- Why Nationstar Mortgage classified the loan as fraud
- What their Quality Control review found
- Why they formally reported James to Fannie Mae
- What evidence triggered the mandatory report
The Internal Complaints:
- Who complained about Pulte’s access to loan files
- What specifically they alleged
- Whether the complaints challenged the evidence of fraud or just the process
- What the Inspector General found when investigating the complaints
The FBI Investigation:
- What federal agents uncovered with subpoena power
- What bank records revealed
- What witnesses said
- What documentary evidence they obtained
All of this will become part of the public record.
James is asking for it.
The Question for Judge Walker
Judge Walker now faces a straightforward question:
Does the fact that a fraud investigation began after independent researchers published forensic analysis of public records—and a federal agency verified that analysis using their own records—constitute “outrageous government conduct”?
Put differently: Is it unconstitutional for the government to investigate documented fraud just because a blogger found it first?
James argues yes. She claims the FHFA investigation was illegitimate because it followed my published work rather than arising through normal channels.
But that’s absurd.
Fraud investigations frequently begin with tips from outside sources:
- Whistleblowers
- Journalists
- Competing businesses
- Disgruntled employees
- Forensic accountants
The source of the initial allegation doesn’t determine whether the investigation is legitimate. The evidence determines that.
And in this case, the evidence was already in public records before any federal agency got involved.
The mortgage applications were public.
The property records were public.
The financial disclosure statements were public.
The Certificate of Occupancy records were public.
I didn’t create the evidence. I found it. And I showed my work.
If my analysis was wrong, James can point to which document I misread, which calculation I botched, which property record I misunderstood.
She hasn’t. Because she can’t.
The documents say what they say. The math is what it is. The contradictions are undeniable.
The Erik Siebert Question
As I documented in my November 16 article “Erik Siebert Had 40 Years of Documentary Evidence. He Chose Not to Prosecute Letitia James,” former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert had access to all of this evidence before he resigned on September 19, 2025.
He had:
- 40 years of public records proving systematic fraud
- 8 months of published forensic investigations from independent researchers
- The FHFA criminal referral
- 5 months of FBI investigation findings
And he concluded there was “insufficient evidence.”
James’s new motion doesn’t change that analysis. It reinforces it.
Siebert looked at documented fraud spanning four decades, walked into the Oval Office with President Trump, emerged hours after Trump publicly demanded his ouster, and resigned rather than prosecute.
Not because the evidence was insufficient. Because prosecuting a sitting state Attorney General who had sued the President-elect was politically uncomfortable.
Lindsey Halligan made the harder choice. She looked at the same evidence Siebert saw—plus what continued investigation uncovered—and concluded that systematic fraud warrants prosecution regardless of politics.
That’s courage. Not vindictiveness.
The Irony of the Discovery Request
There’s a delicious irony in James’s motion.
She’s demanding that prosecutors produce internal FHFA complaints and investigation records to prove the investigation was politically motivated.
But those documents will show exactly how thorough and evidence-driven the investigation actually was.
The internal complaints likely show:
- Ethics investigators questioning whether Pulte followed proper procedures
- Debates about whether the FHFA had authority to make criminal referrals
- Concerns about accessing mortgage files for non-regulatory purposes
None of which change whether the underlying fraud occurred.
Process questions don’t erase substantive evidence.
If Pulte improperly accessed loan files, that’s a personnel matter. Fire him. Discipline him. Investigate him.
But it doesn’t make the phantom mortgages reappear in property records.
It doesn’t make the contradictory sworn statements consistent.
It doesn’t make the mathematical impossibilities possible.
It doesn’t undo 40 years of systematic fraud.
There’s another tell in James’s approach: She filed a formal motion demanding these documents rather than simply requesting them from prosecutors.
Standard practice: Defense counsel emails: “We notice gaps in the Bates sequence, can you produce FM_EDVA_122_0000024 through 0000098?” Government responds within days.
James’s approach: File a public motion with the court, schedule briefing, force a hearing, generate media coverage.
Why? Because she’s not trying to get documents. She’s trying to create a public record of alleged “prosecutorial misconduct” that doesn’t exist. If the documents truly contained exculpatory material, her lawyers would have requested them informally and gotten them within 48 hours under Brady.
The fact that she’s making a public spectacle of the request rather than just asking for the documents tells you everything: This is theater, not legitimate discovery.
Here’s why this is pure theater:
Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors have a constitutional duty to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence—evidence that could help prove innocence or undermine the prosecution’s case.
Under Giglio v. United States, prosecutors must provide evidence that could impeach a government witness.
These aren’t optional courtesies. These are constitutional requirements.
So here’s the trap James walked into:
If the internal complaints and Inspector General documents she’s demanding are exculpatory—if they show Pulte acted improperly, if they prove the investigation was illegitimate, if they contain evidence of “no fraud”—prosecutors would already be required to turn them over under Brady.
The fact that prosecutors haven’t produced them means one of two things:
- The documents are not exculpatory (they don’t help James’s defense), OR
- The documents are work product or privileged (internal deliberations, legal strategy)
Either way, filing a public motion demanding them is pure theater.
If they were exculpatory, she’d already have them. If they’re not exculpatory, this motion won’t get them. The only purpose of this public filing is to create a narrative of “prosecutorial misconduct” for media consumption.
Her lawyers know this. That’s why they filed a motion instead of making a simple request.
What James Is Really Afraid Of
James’s motion reveals what she’s truly worried about.
Not the current two-count indictment about Peronne Avenue.
The superseding charges that are coming.
Remember that federal subpoena issued November 12, 2025, seeking James’s financial disclosure statements for 2020-2024? Return date: December 5, 2025.
You don’t subpoena five years of financial disclosures to prosecute a case about one 2020 mortgage.
You don’t subpoena five years of disclosures unless you’re mapping a pattern.
If you look at what DOJ has subpoenaed and how mortgage-fraud prosecutions usually evolve, here’s the logical roadmap of what a superseding indictment could look like:
Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) – Five years of false financial disclosures filed electronically with New York State, plus the HAMP mortgage modification obtained through material misrepresentation to a federally-backed program
Additional Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) – Brooklyn property (20+ years of false mortgage statements), Sterling Street property (false principal residence declaration), Queens property (1982 mortgage fraud listing father as husband)
RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962) – Operating a criminal enterprise spanning 40+ years using systematic real estate fraud as the predicate acts
That’s what this motion is really about.
James sees the superseding indictment coming. She’s trying to get the entire case dismissed before prosecutors can return to the grand jury.
But demanding discovery and an evidentiary hearing won’t help. It will accelerate the timeline by forcing prosecutors to present evidence sooner.
The Question That Matters
Strip away all the constitutional arguments, all the claims about political motivation, all the attacks on investigators’ procedures.
One question remains: Did Letitia James commit mortgage fraud?
The public records say yes.
The forensic analysis says yes.
The FHFA investigation says yes.
The FBI investigation says yes.
Fannie Mae’s fraud investigators say yes.
The mortgage servicer’s mandatory regulatory report says yes.
The federal grand jury said yes.
And now James is asking Judge Walker to make prosecutors prove it in an evidentiary hearing.
Okay.
Let’s do that.
Documents Don’t Lie
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Documents don’t lie.
The mortgage applications exist.
The property records exist.
The financial disclosures exist.
The Certificate of Occupancy records exist.
The Second Home Rider exists.
Thompson’s Instagram posts exist.
The rent payment records exist.
The tax returns exist.
The Lender Self-Report exists.
Every fact is checkable. Every document is real.
James’s strategy appears to be: attack the investigators, question the process, impugn the motives, demand discovery, request hearings, file motion after motion.
But none of that changes what the documents say.
And the documents say that Letitia James committed systematic mortgage fraud across multiple properties over four decades, obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial benefits through false statements, and then used her position as New York Attorney General to deflect investigation while continuing to file false financial disclosures with the state.
That’s not politics. That’s crime.
What Happens Next
James has now filed two motions to dismiss:
- Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution (November 7, 2025) – arguing the indictment was politically motivated
- Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct (November 17, 2025) – arguing the investigation violated due process
Both motions rest on the same factual premise: that the evidence against her is insufficient and the prosecution is politically driven.
But James’s own November 14 motion revealed 115,000 pages of evidence.
And her November 17 motion is now demanding to see even more of it.
The government’s response is due November 21, 2025.
That response will likely:
- Detail exactly what the 115,000 pages of evidence contain
- Explain how the FHFA investigation was conducted
- Describe what Fannie Mae’s fraud investigators found
- Document the FBI’s five-month investigation
- Address the internal complaints James is demanding
- Explain the significance of the mandatory Lender Self-Report
And then Judge Walker will have to decide.
Not based on James’s characterization of the evidence.
Not based on defense lawyers’ rhetoric about political motivation.
Based on what the actual evidence shows.
Be Careful What You Wish For
Letitia James just demanded that prosecutors produce:
- Internal complaints about the FHFA investigation
- Specific Bates-stamped discovery documents
- Evidence about how the investigation was conducted
- An evidentiary hearing where all of this will be presented
She’s about to get exactly what she asked for.
And when those documents are produced, they will show:
- A thorough, evidence-driven investigation
- Professional fraud investigators following the evidence
- Substantive findings of systematic fraud
- A mandatory regulatory report classifying the loan as fraudulent
- Financial calculations showing material harm to lenders
- Documentation spanning 40 years across multiple properties
None of which will help her defense.
James appears to believe that if she can prove the investigation started because Bill Pulte read my blog, that will invalidate the entire prosecution.
But that’s not how it works.
The source of the initial tip doesn’t determine whether the investigation is legitimate. The evidence determines that.
And the evidence is overwhelming.
Documented in public records.
Verified by federal investigators.
Formally reported by mortgage servicers.
Backed by 115,000 pages of discovery.
And now James is demanding that Judge Walker make prosecutors show all of it.
Be careful what you wish for, Tish.
You just asked the judge to expose every document that proves your guilt.
Related Articles:
- 115,000 Pages of “Insufficient Evidence”: Letitia James’s Own Court Filing Destroys the Defense Strategy
- Erik Siebert Had 40 Years of Documentary Evidence. He Chose Not to Prosecute Letitia James
- When Defense Lawyers Rewrite History: A Forensic Deconstruction of Every Factual Misrepresentation in Letitia James’s Motion to Dismiss
Follow @SamAntar on X for updates on this investigation
Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.