Abbe Lowell filed 50 pages attacking “fringe bloggers” and alleging vindictive prosecution. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed on the Appointments Clause instead—and the dismissal is without prejudice. The evidence remains. DOJ can re-indict tomorrow.
The Dismissal That Wasn’t a Victory
On November 24, 2025, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the federal indictment against Letitia James.
The case is assigned to Judge Jamar K. Walker in the Eastern District of Virginia. However, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie—a senior United States District Judge from South Carolina—was specially designated by Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz to hear motions concerning Lindsey Halligan’s appointment. This wasn’t a random assignment. The Fourth Circuit specifically brought in an outside judge to rule on the Appointments Clause question.
The media will call this a win for James. It isn’t.
Here’s what Judge Currie actually ruled:
“The appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution… The indictment is dismissed without prejudice.”
That’s it. A procedural defect in who signed the indictment—not what the indictment contained.
Lowell filed 50 pages attacking me as a “right-wing fringe blogger,” alleging Pulte engaged in “outrageous government conduct,” and claiming the evidence was “uncorroborated.”
Judge Currie ruled on none of that.
She ruled that Lindsey Halligan wasn’t properly appointed. That’s a problem DOJ can fix in 24 hours with a properly appointed U.S. Attorney.
Without prejudice means James is not exonerated, not acquitted, not vindicated. She’s back where she started—except now her own documents proving consciousness of guilt are part of the public record.
What the Dismissal Does NOT Change
Judge Currie’s ruling does not erase:
1. The consciousness of guilt trifecta: James’s 2020 tax returns claimed depreciation deductions (investment property treatment) the same year she signed mortgage documents swearing it was her “second home.” Her 2024 text to her accountant—”I do not want to take deduction. It looks suspicious”—proves she knew. Her 2020 financial disclosure listed it as investment property on a form that says “do NOT list secondary residences.” Worse, even after that text, she still listed it as an investment property in her financial disclosures for 2024 that was filed in May 2025.
2. James’s bank records: Federal prosecutors obtained Citibank statements showing James stayed at the Renaissance Portsmouth hotel during visits to Norfolk—despite claiming the Peronne residence was her “second home.” Why stay in hotels if you own a vacation home in the area?
3. Utility records: James’s niece registered utilities in September 2020—one month before James claimed to move in.
4. Voter registration: James’s niece attempted to register to vote at the Peronne address. You don’t register to vote at someone else’s “vacation home.”
5. Rent collection: Schedule E tax documents show James collected rent from her niece and reported zero personal use days. Collecting rent is the textbook definition of an investment property—and “zero personal use days” directly contradicts the Second Home Rider requirement of 182.5+ days of personal occupancy.
None of this came from me. None of this came from Pulte. This is James’s own paper trail, obtained by federal prosecutors through subpoena power, proving she knew exactly what she was doing.
The Appointments Clause doesn’t have an eraser.
The 50 Pages That Didn’t Matter
On November 17, 2025, Abbe Lowell filed a Motion to Dismiss making three core arguments:
- The investigation originated from a “right-wing fringe blogger” (me)
- FHFA Director William Pulte engaged in “outrageous government conduct”
- The findings were “uncorroborated”
Three days later, DOJ filed their Response—and demolished every argument with James’s own subpoenaed documents.
Then Judge Currie ruled.
She didn’t rule on “fringe bloggers.” She didn’t rule on Pulte. She didn’t rule on vindictive prosecution. She didn’t rule on whether the evidence was corroborated.
She ruled on the Appointments Clause.
Lowell’s 50-page attack on the investigation’s origins? Irrelevant to the dismissal.
The amicus briefs from Schumer, Jeffries, former DOJ officials, and “Lawyers Defending American Democracy”? Irrelevant to the dismissal.
The media narrative about political persecution? Irrelevant to the dismissal.
Judge Currie found a procedural defect in Halligan’s appointment. Full stop.
What DOJ’s Response Put on the Record
Before the dismissal, DOJ filed a comprehensive Response that revealed evidence obtained through federal subpoena power—evidence I never had access to:
Her Tax Returns: Starting in 2020—the same year she signed mortgage documents swearing the Peronne property was her “second home”—James took depreciation deductions on the property. You can only depreciate investment property, not a personal residence. She was telling the IRS it was an investment while telling Fannie Mae it was her vacation home.
Her Text Message (March 28, 2024):
“I do not want to take deduction. It looks suspicious and I need to do everything according to the tax code.”
This wasn’t a sudden realization. She had been taking those “suspicious” deductions for years. The text proves she knew the investment property treatment contradicted her mortgage representations—and she knew it looked bad.
Her Financial Disclosure: James listed the Peronne property as an investment on her New York State financial disclosure form—even though the form explicitly instructs officials “NOT [to] list any real property which is the primary or secondary personal residence.” I found this in public records. DOJ then subpoenaed New York State for additional verification.
She listed it as investment because she knew it wasn’t her secondary residence. Her own sworn filing says so.
The Pattern: In 2020, James signed mortgage documents calling it a “second home.” That same year, she took depreciation deductions telling the IRS it was an investment. She listed it as investment property on her state ethics disclosure. In 2024, she texted her accountant that taking the deduction “looks suspicious.” She continued to list it as an investment property in her 2024 ethics disclosure filed in 2025.
That’s not confusion. That’s consciousness of guilt documented across four years and multiple government filings.
That evidence is now part of the public court record. It doesn’t disappear because of an Appointments Clause problem.
The Lowell Paradox
Lowell’s defense strategy created a paradox he can’t escape:
He established the standard: In his April 2025 letter to Attorney General Bondi, Lowell criticized investigations “based on media reports” as “lacking in any credible foundation.”
DOJ met and exceeded it: Their evidence came from James’s own subpoenaed documents—text messages, tax returns, financial disclosures, bank records. Not media reports. Not my blog. James herself.
He described Pulte’s conduct—and accidentally proved it was legal: Lowell argued Pulte either relied on my public blog, purchased public records, or accessed Fannie Mae databases. All three are lawful activities. The first two require no authority at all. The third is explicitly authorized by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2).
He vindicated my investigations: Federal prosecutors using subpoena power reached the same conclusions as my public-records investigation. My findings weren’t “uncorroborated”—they were confirmed by law enforcement.
None of this changes because of Judge Currie’s ruling on the Appointments Clause.
The Footnote That Proves Too Much
In footnote 12 of the Motion to Dismiss, Lowell’s team made a stunning error. While calling my findings “uncorroborated,” they provided a hyperlink to my article “When The Wall Street Journal Tries to Make Letitia James’ Public Records Disappear.”
The footnote reads:
“See Sam Antar, When The Wall Street Journal Tries to Make Letitia James’ Public Records Disappear, White Collar Fraud (Nov. 11, 2025), https://whitecollarfraud.com/2025/11/11/when-the-wall-street-journal-tries-to-make-letitia-james-public-records-disappear. However, for the Director of FHFA to go beyond his statutory mandate and send a criminal referral solely on the uncorroborated findings of an internet investigator, without conducting any due diligence of his own, is possibly more outrageous than his misuse of Fannie Mae databases.”
Apparently, Lowell’s team hoped Judge Currie wouldn’t click the link. Because the article itself documents comprehensive, multi-source corroboration:
- Two completely independent investigations: My investigation (launched February 8, 2025) and Joel Gilbert’s investigation (launched March 18, 2025)—different sources, different timelines, identical findings
- Multiple government databases: NY State financial disclosures, Norfolk County property records, NYC ACRIS, Department of Buildings records
- FHFA’s independent analysis: Their own financial calculations reaching the same conclusions
- Mathematical impossibilities: Loan-to-value ratios of 167%-400% that require no external verification
The defense handed Judge Currie a direct link to evidence disproving their own claim.
What Lowell’s Strategy Actually Accomplished
Let’s tally the results of Lowell’s Motion to Dismiss:
Intended Effect: Discredit investigation origins, establish Pulte misconduct, get case dismissed on vindictive prosecution grounds
Actual Effect:
- Linked to evidence disproving their own claim: Footnote 12 calls findings “uncorroborated” while providing a hyperlink to an article documenting comprehensive corroboration
- Set a standard DOJ easily exceeded: “Media reports lack credibility” → DOJ proved their evidence came from James’s own subpoenaed documents
- Established Pulte’s conduct was legal: All three “possibilities” Lowell described—reviewing public analysis, purchasing public records, accessing databases with statutory authority—are lawful activities
- Corroborated my investigations: Federal prosecutors using subpoena power reached identical conclusions to my public-records analysis
- Made a “misrepresentation to the Court”: The Wicker comparison was factually false—Wicker’s documents prove he committed no fraud
- Put consciousness of guilt in the record: DOJ’s Response now includes James’s “it looks suspicious” text message as part of the permanent court record
- Made the Pulte referral irrelevant: By forcing DOJ to demonstrate independent corroboration, Lowell proved the case no longer depends on how it started
- Lost on grounds he barely argued: Judge Currie dismissed on the Appointments Clause—not on vindictive prosecution, not on “fringe blogger,” not on Pulte misconduct
The motion designed to get the case dismissed on vindictive prosecution grounds instead got dismissed on a technicality DOJ can fix in 24 hours—while putting James’s consciousness of guilt permanently on the public record.
“Garden Variety Mortgage Fraud”
The DOJ’s Response contains a phrase that should terrify James’s defense team:
“At its core, this case represents no more than a garden variety mortgage fraud prosecution.”
The government attached Exhibit 1: a list of 19 comparable fraud cases prosecuted by the Norfolk Division from 2021-2025. The Eastern District of Virginia prosecutes mortgage fraud routinely, regardless of the defendant’s political affiliation.
That characterization doesn’t change because of an Appointments Clause ruling.
The Senator Wicker Disaster
Lowell’s motion cited Senator Roger Wicker as a comparator—claiming he committed similar mortgage fraud but wasn’t prosecuted.
The DOJ demolished this:
“The New York Times reported that Senator Wicker actually committed no fraud at all… Mr. Wicker’s office provided The Times with private loan documents showing that he had actually attested that his Alexandria property… was to be used as a second-home investment property.”
The government added: “The allegation against the remaining proposed comparator, Senator Wicker, is a misrepresentation to the Court.”
The Attorney General of New York—through her attorneys—accused a sitting U.S. Senator of fraud in a federal court filing based on a misreading of a newspaper article. That’s still on the record.
The “Right-Wing Fringe Blogger” Attack
Lowell’s motion calls me a “right-wing” “fringe blogger” multiple times. The framing spread quickly—Lawfare’s Molly Roberts amplified it without clicking through to the footnote she was citing.
So I responded:
I pull the documents. You act like reading them is above your pay grade.
✓ Her mortgages
✓ Her riders
✓ Her POA
✓ Her tax forms
✓ Her disclosures
✗ None of them came from me
✗ All of them came from her own signature
Let me be clear about who I am:
I am a registered Democrat. I don’t support Donald Trump. Eric Trump blocked me on Twitter years ago and still has me blocked. The idea that I’m coordinating with the Trump administration is so absurd that Eric Trump won’t even see this article.
I’m not a “blogger.” I’m a forensic accountant who has trained over 10,000 CPAs, worked with federal prosecutors, the FBI, the IRS, and SEC for three decades, and built a methodology based exclusively on documentary evidence.
I was never deputized by anyone. I was never given investigative authority. I published my findings before any federal official contacted me.
And DOJ independently confirmed every finding with subpoenaed documents I never had access to.
But here’s the key point: My political affiliation doesn’t change what’s in James’s own documents.
Her text message still says “it looks suspicious”—whether discovered by a Democrat or Republican.
Her financial disclosure still lists the property as investment—regardless of who reads it.
Her tax returns still claim investment property deductions—no matter the political affiliation of the IRS.
Documents don’t have political affiliations. And neither does fraud.
What Happens Next
Judge Currie dismissed the indictment without prejudice. That means:
- DOJ can re-indict immediately with a properly appointed U.S. Attorney signing the indictment.
- The evidence remains—James’s text messages, tax returns, financial disclosures, and bank records are all part of the court record.
- No double jeopardy—James was never tried, so she can be charged again for the same conduct.
- Additional charges possible—Brooklyn (2001-2021), Queens (1982), and Sterling Street (2023) properties were documented in Pulte’s referral but not charged in this indictment.
- State prosecution remains available—New York financial disclosure violations are state crimes that federal dismissal doesn’t affect.
- IRS enforcement remains available—The tax discrepancies (claiming investment treatment while certifying personal use) don’t disappear.
James is not exonerated. She’s not acquitted. She’s not vindicated.
She’s in the same position she occupied before being indicted—except now the evidence is public.
The Door Judge Currie Opened
Judge Currie’s ruling was based on one thing: Lindsey Halligan wasn’t properly appointed as Interim U.S. Attorney under the Appointments Clause.
But DOJ has a simple fix available immediately.
The Cleanest Path: Assign an Existing U.S. Attorney
DOJ doesn’t need to nominate anyone or wait for Senate confirmation. Attorney General Bondi can assign any existing Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney from another district to handle the case—a routine practice when conflicts arise or specialized prosecution is needed. That U.S. Attorney signs the indictment, the case proceeds in EDVA where venue is proper, and Halligan can remain on the trial team without triggering Appointments Clause issues.
No confirmation hearing. No legal challenges. No delay. This can happen this week.
Why This Path Is Best
The alternatives carry risk. Appointing Halligan as Special Counsel under 28 C.F.R. § 600 faces uncertainty after Judge Cannon’s ruling in the Trump documents case, where she found Jack Smith’s appointment unconstitutional on similar Appointments Clause grounds. That ruling is on appeal, but it creates a roadmap for Lowell to challenge any Special Counsel appointment.
The cleanest path avoids all of this: an already Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney signs the indictment. No novel legal questions. No appellate risk. Just a different signature on the same charges with the same evidence.
The Irony
Judge Currie’s ruling didn’t stop the prosecution—it may have made it stronger. The Appointments Clause problem forced DOJ to think through the cleanest prosecutorial structure. A Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney signs the indictment; Halligan runs the day-to-day prosecution under proper supervision. No constitutional issue remains.
The evidence doesn’t change. The charges don’t change. Only the signature changes.
The Bottom Line
Lowell filed 50 pages attacking the investigation’s origins.
Judge Currie ruled on an Appointments Clause technicality.
The evidence didn’t disappear.
Letitia James committed mortgage fraud—and she wrote the evidence herself. A procedural dismissal doesn’t change what’s in her own documents.
DOJ can fix the Appointments Clause problem in 24 hours. James can’t unwrite her text message, her tax returns, or her financial disclosures.
The dismissal is without prejudice.
The fraud is still fraud.
Written by Sam Antar
Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator
Author’s Note: I am a registered Democrat. I do not support Donald Trump. Eric Trump has had me blocked on Twitter for years. My investigations rely exclusively on public records and sworn filings. The DOJ’s investigation, using federal subpoena power, confirmed what those documents showed—using evidence I never had access to. Judge Currie’s dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds does not change the documentary evidence of fraud.
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.