A forensic accountant’s guide to media misdirection
The Clever Little Trick
The Wall Street Journal’s Gina Heeb, Brian Schwartz, and C. Ryan Barber just ran 800 words about “improper access” at Fannie Mae without mentioning the New York State Financial Disclosure Statements that started this investigation. Not once. Those statements—showing phantom mortgages and mathematical impossibilities—are posted on a public website. Anyone can download them. Including Wall Street Journal reporters.
Oh, and about that “improper access”? As FHFA Director and conservator of Fannie Mae, Bill Pulte has explicit statutory authority under federal law to access any Fannie Mae records. It’s literally his job. But the WSJ’s framing makes it sound like he broke into a locked filing cabinet.
Notice what the article doesn’t do:
- It doesn’t attack the documents
- It doesn’t address the math
- It doesn’t mention the New York State Financial Disclosure Statements
- It doesn’t engage the public ACRIS and county records that underpin the case
Instead, it builds a cloud of “improper investigation” so readers feel doubt about the evidence—without ever testing the evidence itself.
The Three-Step Distraction Strategy
The WSJ piece doesn’t dispute any facts in my investigations or Joel Gilbert’s. It doesn’t challenge the mathematical impossibilities. It doesn’t explain the phantom mortgages. It doesn’t address the contradictory sworn statements.
Instead, it reframes the story’s origin around alleged “improper access,” turning document-based evidence into a process controversy.
This accomplishes three things:
1. Distraction: It moves the reader’s attention from what the documents show to how someone might have obtained them. Once the narrative is about “who looked at what,” the underlying math and contradictions vanish from view.
2. Delegitimization by association: By mentioning investigations only in the context of a probe into supposed misconduct at Fannie Mae, they imply the work is “tainted” or politically driven, without ever engaging the calculations. It’s guilt-by-proximity—casting a shadow without making a factual claim they’d have to defend.
3. Insulation for James: If readers believe records were accessed “improperly,” then the documents themselves become suspect in the public mind. That blunts the impact of evidence without the Journal having to assert anything false or testable.
The irony: Joel Gilbert and I sourced everything from public filings—exactly what journalists are supposed to do. Pulte’s DOJ referral simply transmitted what was already public.
This is a soft-delegitimization strategy, not a factual rebuttal.
Two Independent Public-Records Investigations (No Fannie Mae Required)
Investigation #1: Sam Antar — Launched February 8, 2025
Sources: NY State Financial Disclosure site; Norfolk (VA) recorder; NYC ACRIS; Certificate of Occupancy records
Key findings:
- 2023 NY disclosure shows property value $100,000–$150,000 vs. mortgages totaling $250,000–$400,000 (a 167%–400% loan-to-value ratio—mathematically impossible in legitimate lending)
- “Freedom Mortgage” and “National Mortgage” reported to New York do not appear in Norfolk records
- OVM Financial mortgage (~$109,600) discovered in Norfolk records (documented in February 13, 2025 article) but was never disclosed to New York
- Follow-on investigations documented contradictions across Brooklyn and Sterling Street using only public filings
Fannie Mae access required: Zero
Investigation #2: Joel Gilbert (Gateway Pundit) — Launched March 18, 2025
Sources: NYC ACRIS; NYC Certificate of Occupancy; publicly recorded loan and HAMP documents
Key findings:
- Certificate of Occupancy: 5 units at 296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn
- Mortgage documents (2001–2021) consistently reported 1–4 units
- HAMP modification obtained despite the program excluding 5+ unit buildings
Fannie Mae access required: Zero
Common thread: Both investigations used only public records. No Fannie Mae access needed.
The Investigation Timeline That Started Before Trump
February 8, 2025: I publish “Beyond Campaign Spending: Letitia James’ Puzzling Property Portfolio Raises New Questions” – my first comprehensive investigation into James’s financial disclosures to New York State
February 13, 2025: I publish “Discrepancies in AG Letitia James’ Financial Disclosures” – documenting the mathematical impossibility
March 3, 2025: I publish “Exposing a Decade of Letitia James’ Financial Misreporting” – Brooklyn and Peronne Avenue properties
March 18, 2025: Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert investigates Brooklyn property (4 vs 5 units on HAMP loan). I publish “Handwritten Mortgage Modifications”
March 21, 2025: I publish “Building Permits Raise Serious Questions” – Trump shares it same day
April 1, 2025: I publish “Sterling Street Principal Residence” investigation
April 10, 2025: Trump shares Sterling Street investigation
April 14, 2025: FHFA criminal referral to DOJ citing our public records documentation
Key point: My first article was published February 8, 2025—before any alleged Fannie Mae involvement. Joel Gilbert’s independent investigation launched March 18, 2025. Both used exclusively public sources. The WSJ won’t mention any of it.
What Pulte Actually Said (And Why It Matters)
Pulte has publicly said he used “media reports” for his mortgage investigations, before making a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.
That’s precisely what these investigations are: public disclosures filed with New York State and public land records from county recorders and NYC databases.
Whether anyone inside Fannie Mae behaved badly has no bearing on whether New York’s own disclosure statements and city/county property records say what they say.
On October 9, 2025, a federal grand jury indicted Letitia James on two counts of bank fraud and false statements related to the Norfolk property. The indictment documents the contradictory sworn statements she made to the bank, insurance company, IRS, and New York State—all provable from the public records documented in these investigations.
The “Improper Access” Claim Ignores Pulte’s Legal Authority
The WSJ’s framing suggests Pulte “improperly accessed” records he had no right to see. This ignores a basic legal fact:
As FHFA Director and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bill Pulte has broad statutory authority to access all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac systems, data, and records.
This authority comes from the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), codified at 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2), which states that the conservator “may take over the assets of and operate the regulated entity … and conduct all business of the regulated entity.”
What this means in practice:
- The FHFA Director, as conservator, can review or direct access to Fannie’s internal databases, including mortgage files, underwriting data, and servicing information
- Fannie and Freddie staff are legally obligated to comply with FHFA directives under conservatorship
- There is no legal barrier to the FHFA Director examining specific mortgage files if it serves regulatory, compliance, or fraud-prevention purposes
The legal standard: Even if Pulte requested specific information, that’s not “improper access”—it’s within his statutory authority. The only way it could be problematic is if he used that access for a personal or political purpose outside official duties, and the WSJ article offers no evidence of that.
Bottom line: Under HERA, FHFA as conservator can access all Fannie/Freddie data. The WSJ’s “improper access” framing misleads readers into thinking Pulte viewed private records he had no right to see, when the law explicitly grants him that authority as conservator.
The Evidence the WSJ Hopes You Won’t Check
1. The Math Problem (NY State Disclosure)
- Property value: $100,000–$150,000
- Mortgages disclosed: $250,000–$400,000
- Loan-to-value ratio: 167%–400% (mathematically impossible in legitimate lending)
Source: 2023 New York State Financial Disclosure Statement (public)
2. The Five-Year Pattern (NY State Disclosures 2020–2024)
2020–2022: No mortgages disclosed (while OVM Financial mortgage exists in Norfolk records)
2023–2024: Two mortgages disclosed (Freedom/National) that don’t appear in Norfolk property records; the OVM loan remains undisclosed
Result: Five consecutive years of false statements under penalty of perjury
3. The Phantom Mortgages (Norfolk County Records)
Disclosed to New York State:
- Freedom Mortgage: Listed as existing
- National Mortgage: Listed as existing
Norfolk County property records show:
- Freedom Mortgage: Does not exist
- National Mortgage: Does not exist
- OVM Financial mortgage ($109,600): Exists but never disclosed to New York State
4. The Brooklyn 20-Year Pattern (NYC ACRIS / Certificate of Occupancy)
- Certificate of Occupancy: 5 units
- Ten mortgage documents (2001–2021): Consistently reported as 1–4 units
- Each false statement = separate violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014
5. HAMP Federal Program Fraud
- Federal HAMP Program: Excludes buildings with 5+ units
- James’s Brooklyn property: 5 units (Certificate of Occupancy)
- HAMP modification documents: “4 fam” handwritten; contradictory notes about “not more than 6 residential units“
Result: Federal relief program defrauded
6. Sterling Street Contradiction (Public Documents)
- August 2, 2023: Email stating “WILL NOT be my primary residence”
- August 17, 2023: Sworn declaration stating property will be “principal residence”
- Time between contradictory statements: 15 days
Source: Documents provided by defense attorney Abbe Lowell in response to FHFA referral
Result: The defense’s own filing documented the contradiction
All of the above are in public government repositories.
Receipts You Can Verify Right Now
Public sources anyone can access:
| Document | Source | What It Shows |
| NY State Financial Disclosure Statements (2020–2024) | New York State public website | Phantom mortgages; mathematical impossibilities; five years of contradictions |
| Norfolk County Property Records | Norfolk Recorder’s Office (VA) | OVM mortgage exists; Freedom/National mortgages don’t exist |
| NYC ACRIS Database | NYC Department of Finance (public) | Ten mortgages reporting 1-4 units (2001-2021) |
| Certificate of Occupancy – 296 Lafayette Ave | NYC Buildings Department (public) | 5 units (contradicts all mortgage documents) |
| Federal HAMP Program Rules | U.S. Treasury (public) | Excludes buildings with 5+ units |
| Sterling Street Mortgage Documents | Norfolk County recorded documents | Sworn declaration contradicts email 15 days earlier |
All sources are public government repositories accessible to anyone.
What the WSJ Is Actually Doing
They’re not saying the disclosures are accurate.
They’re not saying the math checks out.
They’re not saying county/ACRIS records support the filings.
They’re not saying the second independent investigation is wrong.
They’re just not mentioning any of it—while inviting readers to conflate “process concerns” at Fannie Mae with the validity of public documents that Fannie Mae doesn’t control.
The Forensic Standard
I’ve worked with federal prosecutors, the FBI, the SEC, and class-action firms for decades. Here’s what I know:
When evidence is weak: You attack the evidence itself.
When evidence is strong: You attack the investigation.
When evidence is public, arithmetic, and independently verified: You ignore it and talk about something else.
We’re at stage three.
What Heeb, Schwartz, and Barber Could Do in 20 Minutes (But Didn’t)
- Download the Financial Disclosure Statements from New York State’s website
- Calculate the loan-to-value ratio ($400,000 ÷ $150,000 = 267%)
- Check Norfolk County indexes for Freedom and National mortgages
- Search NYC ACRIS for 296 Lafayette Avenue mortgage documents
- Compare mortgage unit counts to Certificate of Occupancy
- Verify HAMP eligibility requirements on building unit counts
- Review the Sterling Street timeline (August 2 email vs. August 17 declaration)
If the numbers worked, they’d publish them.
If the county records supported the disclosures, they’d say so.
If the ACRIS trail matched the Certificate of Occupancy, they’d explain why.
They didn’t.
The Bottom Line
Public records don’t care about process narratives.
New York’s own disclosure statements, NYC’s ACRIS database, the Certificate of Occupancy, and Norfolk’s property records all say what they say—today.
Two independent investigations. Zero reliance on Fannie Mae. Math a fourth-grader can check.
The Wall Street Journal can write all the articles they want about “improper access” at Fannie Mae.
But they can’t make the Financial Disclosure Statements disappear from New York State’s website.
They can’t erase Joel Gilbert’s independent investigation using NYC’s public ACRIS database.
They can’t change what the Certificate of Occupancy says.
They can’t make Norfolk County property records show mortgages that don’t exist.
And they can’t explain why they won’t verify any of it themselves.
The question isn’t whether Bill Pulte did something wrong at Fannie Mae.
The questions are:
Why won’t the Wall Street Journal mention—let alone verify—the New York State Financial Disclosure Statements?
Why won’t they acknowledge Joel Gilbert’s independent investigation?
Why won’t they check the public databases both journalists used?
What are they afraid readers will find if they look them up?
Follow @SamAntar on X for updates on this investigation
Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.