Letitia James Claimed “Insufficient Evidence.” Then Her Lawyers Revealed 115,000 Pages of It.
In the span of nine days, Letitia James filed her motion to dismiss and four amicus briefs were filed in support, all making the same central claim: experienced career prosecutors reviewed the evidence against New York’s Attorney General and found it insufficient to prosecute.
James’s own motion to dismiss, filed November 7, explicitly claims: “career prosecutors…declined to indict AG James for mortgage fraud” because there was “insufficient evidence to bring charges” and “no probable cause.” The first amicus brief—from bipartisan former federal judges and U.S. attorneys—was filed the same day. Three more amicus briefs followed: one on November 13, one on November 14 (the same day as the discovery motion), and one dated November 14 but filed November 15. All before the government’s November 21 response deadline.
Then, buried in a routine procedural motion filed November 14, James’s own defense team accidentally destroyed the narrative her motion and all four amicus briefs were building.
I’ve already documented the full record of what Erik Siebert had access to and chose to ignore in “Erik Siebert Had 40 Years of Documentary Evidence. He Chose Not to Prosecute Letitia James,” published November 16, 2025. That piece responded to James’s motion to dismiss and the four amicus briefs—all claiming “insufficient evidence.” This piece reveals how James’s own lawyers accidentally undermined that claim just days earlier with their November 14 discovery motion.
As of November 14, 2025, the Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions revealed something none of the amicus briefs mentioned:
“Since the initial appearance, the government has produced a significant amount of electronic discovery to the defense, spanning five production volumes containing, in total, more than 17,000 documents and 115,000 pages. The latest production (Vol. 05) alone, received on Wednesday, November 12, included nearly two terabytes of data.”
Read that again.
17,000+ documents.
115,000+ pages.
Nearly 2 terabytes of data in a single production batch.
James’s lawyers told Judge Jamar K. Walker they need two extra weeks—until December 1, 2025—just to process the massive volume of evidence the government has compiled against their client.
Let me state this clearly: You don’t need two weeks to review “insufficient evidence.”
What James’s Motion and the Amicus Briefs Claimed
Between November 7 and November 15, 2025, Letitia James filed her motion to dismiss and four amicus briefs were filed in support. Every single one relied on the same factual premise: insufficient evidence.
Letitia James’s Motion to Dismiss (November 7, 2025):
“career prosecutors…declined to indict AG James for mortgage fraud”
“there was no probable cause”
“insufficient evidence to bring charges”
“absence of evidence”
“found evidence that would appear to undercut some of the allegations”
“concluded that any financial benefit…would have amounted to approximately $800”
Brief of Bipartisan Former Federal Judges and Former United States Attorneys (November 7, 2025):
Career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia “declined to bring charges” after reviewing the evidence. [Filed the same day as James’s motion to dismiss, before the November 14 discovery motion]
Motion on Behalf of Former Senior Officials of the Department of Justice (November 13, 2025):
Erik Siebert’s office “concluded the evidence was not there” to support prosecution. [Filed one day before the November 14 discovery motion]
Schumer/Jeffries Brief (November 14, 2025):
“experienced prosecutors…believed there was insufficient evidence” [Filed the same day as the motion revealing 115,000 pages]
Lawyers Defending American Democracy Brief (November 15, 2025):
The current prosecution proceeded despite career prosecutors finding “insufficient evidence” to charge. [Dated November 14, filed November 15—one day after the motion revealing 115,000 pages]
The constitutional argument is straightforward: If experienced prosecutors properly declined to prosecute due to weak evidence, then the decision to indict James after Erik Siebert resigned must have been politically motivated rather than evidence-driven.
That’s a serious legal argument—one that could potentially result in dismissal of the indictment.
But it rests entirely on a factual premise: that the evidence was insufficient.
Letitia James made this claim explicitly in her motion. The four amicus briefs repeated it. They built their entire constitutional argument on this foundation.
And on November 14—just seven days after James filed her motion claiming “insufficient evidence”—her own lawyers filed a motion revealing 115,000 pages of evidence so voluminous it requires a two-week extension just to process.
What the Defense Motion Revealed
The motion itself is procedurally unremarkable. Defense counsel requested a two-week extension of the pretrial motions deadline from November 17 to December 1, 2025. The government consented. These extensions happen routinely.
But buried in paragraph 5 is the bombshell:
“Since the initial appearance, the government has produced a significant amount of electronic discovery to the defense, spanning five production volumes containing, in total, more than 17,000 documents and 115,000 pages. The latest production (Vol. 05) alone, received on Wednesday, November 12, included nearly two terabytes of data.”
The defense explained that their eDiscovery vendor needs “extensive time” just to upload these documents into reviewable format. Then defense counsel needs “adequate time to review this material” to inform any additional pretrial motions.
Think about what this means:
- Five separate production volumes of discovery
- The latest batch alone was 2 terabytes of data
- Defense counsel needs two extra weeks just to finish processing it
- The government consented to the extension (meaning they agree the volume justifies it)
This isn’t a thin case. This is a mountain of evidence so large that experienced defense attorneys with substantial resources need additional time just to get through it.
The Math Doesn’t Work
Here’s the problem for James and her legal team:
You cannot simultaneously argue that:
- Career prosecutors properly declined to prosecute because evidence was insufficient, AND
- The government has produced 115,000 pages of evidence requiring a two-week extension to review
Pick one. You don’t get both.
If Erik Siebert looked at the evidence in September 2025 and correctly concluded it was insufficient to prosecute, then where did 115,000 pages of evidence come from?
Option A: Most of the 115,000 pages didn’t exist when Siebert made his decision
This can’t be entirely true because we know substantial evidence DID exist before Siebert resigned on September 19, 2025:
- 40 years of public records documenting systematic mortgage fraud across multiple properties in multiple states—available to anyone with internet access
- Eight months of published forensic investigations (February through June 2025) by independent investigators including myself and Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert, documenting phantom mortgages, undisclosed properties, and contradictory sworn statements
- FHFA criminal referral (summer 2025) citing systematic fraud based on those published investigations—the FHFA wouldn’t issue a criminal referral without finding the evidence substantial
- FBI investigation with subpoena power that ran from approximately May through September 2025 while Siebert was U.S. Attorney
The public records alone proved systematic fraud. I documented it in detail. Gilbert documented it independently. The FHFA found it sufficient to issue a criminal referral.
So even if the FBI investigation accelerated after Siebert resigned and generated additional evidence, he already had more than enough to establish probable cause. If he couldn’t see sufficient evidence in what existed before September 19, then his investigation was inadequate and his declination was premature.
Option B: Substantial evidence DID exist when Siebert made his decision
This is demonstrably true. The public records proving systematic fraud were available. My forensic investigations were published months before Siebert resigned. Gilbert’s independent investigation reached the same conclusions. The FHFA issued a criminal referral. The FBI investigation Siebert oversaw had been running for months with subpoena power.
If Siebert looked at all of this evidence—public records proving 40 years of fraud, eight months of published forensic analysis, an FHFA criminal referral, and whatever the FBI had uncovered—and still concluded it was “insufficient,” then he made a choice not to prosecute.
The question isn’t whether evidence existed. It did. The question is whether 115,000 pages worth of evidence that the government is now producing represents:
- Mostly new evidence collected after Siebert left (suggesting his investigation was incomplete), OR
- Evidence that largely existed during his tenure (proving he saw it and declined anyway)
Either scenario undermines the “insufficient evidence” claim.
If it’s mostly new evidence, then Siebert’s investigation was inadequate. If it largely existed before he left, then he saw substantial evidence and chose not to act. There’s no third option where career prosecutors “properly” assessed the evidence and found it lacking.
What We Know Siebert Had Access To
Even if we assume conservatively that only a portion of the current 115,000 pages existed before Siebert resigned on September 19, 2025, we know definitively what evidence was available to him:
The evidence was substantial and damning: 40 years of public records proving systematic fraud across multiple properties, eight months of published forensic investigations by independent researchers (including my detailed analysis and Joel Gilbert’s independent investigation), the FHFA criminal referral citing that systematic fraud, and a five-month FBI investigation with subpoena power to obtain bank records, emails, witness interviews, and internal documents unavailable to private investigators.
For the complete forensic breakdown of this evidence—including phantom mortgages that don’t exist in property records, contradictory sworn statements, mathematical impossibilities, and the full 40-year pattern—see my earlier article: “Erik Siebert Had 40 Years of Documentary Evidence. He Chose Not to Prosecute Letitia James.”
Siebert had access to all of this. And he concluded there was “insufficient evidence.”
The Impossible Defense
James’s legal strategy depends on convincing Judge Walker that the prosecution is vindictive—brought not because of evidence, but because of political animus.
To prove vindictive prosecution, the defense must show either:
- Direct evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness, OR
- Circumstantial evidence creating a presumption of vindictiveness that the government cannot rebut
James’s motion to dismiss and the four amicus briefs argue that the timing of the indictment (after Siebert resigned and Lindsey Halligan took over) combined with political pressure from President Trump creates at minimum a presumption of vindictiveness.
But that argument only works if the factual premise is true: that career prosecutors properly found insufficient evidence.
And James’s own lawyers destroyed that premise on November 14—just seven days after she filed her motion claiming “insufficient evidence.”
You cannot credibly argue that:
- Career prosecutors properly declined prosecution because “there was no probable cause” and “insufficient evidence to bring charges” (James’s motion)
- While simultaneously requesting extensions to process 115,000 pages of evidence
- That includes 2 terabytes of data in a single recent production
- Requiring substantial additional time for defense counsel to review
The math doesn’t work. The logic doesn’t work. The optics don’t work.
What the December 1 Deadline Means
The extended pretrial motions deadline of December 1, 2025 isn’t just about reviewing discovery for the current two-count indictment about Peronne Avenue. Something bigger is happening.
On November 12, 2025—the same day prosecutors delivered that 2-terabyte data dump—federal prosecutors also subpoenaed the New York State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government seeking Letitia James’s financial disclosure statements for the last five years.
The subpoena’s return date: December 5, 2025.
I analyze the strategic significance of this subpoena and what it reveals about prosecutorial strategy in “Federal Subpoena Targets NY Attorney General Letitia James’s Financial Disclosures: Evidence of Superseding Indictments.”
Connect the dots:
- Current indictment: Two counts of bank fraud on the Peronne Avenue mortgage for lying about how she’d use the property
- Evidence prosecutors are gathering: Five years of state financial disclosures (2020-2024)
- Other properties documented in Lowell’s motion: Brooklyn (20+ years of false statements), Sterling Street (false principal residence declaration), Queens (1982 mortgage listing father as husband)
You don’t subpoena five years of financial disclosures to prosecute a case about one 2019 mortgage. You do it when you’re building superseding charges.
Potential superseding counts:
Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) – Five years of false financial disclosures (2020-2024) filed electronically with New York State, plus HAMP mortgage modification obtained for Brooklyn property through material misrepresentation transmitted electronically to federally-backed program
Additional Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) – Brooklyn property (10+ false mortgage statements to federal lenders, 2001-2021), Sterling Street property (false principal residence declaration witnessed by state employees), Queens property (listing father as husband on 1982 mortgage application)
RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962) – Operating a criminal enterprise spanning 40+ years using systematic real estate fraud as the predicate acts
Abbe Lowell’s motion to dismiss actually documented these other properties and violations while arguing they show vindictive prosecution. But whether Judge Walker dismisses or denies, that documentation now exists in the court record.
If Walker dismisses for vindictive prosecution: No double jeopardy bar for different properties and different time periods. Prosecutors can charge Brooklyn, Sterling, Queens, and financial disclosure violations separately—using Lowell’s own motion acknowledging they were investigated.
If Walker denies the motion: Pattern evidence comes in at trial to prove systematic fraud, not isolated mistake.
Either way, the December 1 extended deadline gives prosecutors time to:
- Review James’s responses to the massive discovery production
- Assess her legal strategy and anticipated defenses
- Analyze the just-subpoenaed financial disclosure statements (due December 5)
- Potentially return to the grand jury with superseding charges before the January 26, 2026 trial
What This Means for the Vindictive Prosecution Claim
Judge Walker faces a difficult decision on James’s motion to dismiss. The constitutional issues are complex. The political context is unprecedented. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether the prosecution crosses the line into vindictiveness.
But the factual premise underlying the vindictive prosecution claim is now demonstrably false.
James’s own motion to dismiss argues that career prosecutors properly assessed the evidence and found it insufficient, therefore the subsequent indictment must be politically motivated rather than evidence-driven. The four amicus briefs repeat this claim.
But James’s own defense team just proved there’s a mountain of evidence.
James claimed in her motion: “insufficient evidence to bring charges.” “No probable cause.” “Absence of evidence.”
Her lawyers revealed seven days later: 115,000 pages. Five production volumes. 2 terabytes of data. Two-week extension needed just to process it all.
That’s not insufficient evidence. That’s not a weak case that career prosecutors properly declined.
That’s a prosecutor who chose not to act.
Erik Siebert had access to 40 years of public records proving systematic fraud. He had eight months of published forensic investigations by independent researchers. He had the FHFA criminal referral. He oversaw an FBI investigation with subpoena power.
And he walked away.
Not because the evidence was insufficient—the current massive discovery production proves otherwise.
He walked away because prosecuting a sitting state Attorney General who had sued the President-elect was too politically uncomfortable. He chose institutional preservation over equal application of law.
Then, hours after President Trump publicly stated “I want him out,” Siebert resigned.
Lindsey Halligan made the harder choice. She looked at the evidence—both what existed before and what continued investigation uncovered—and concluded what any honest prosecutor would conclude: Systematic fraud spanning 40 years, documented in public records and backed by 115,000 pages of investigative evidence, warrants prosecution.
The Question Judge Walker Must Answer
The constitutional arguments about vindictive prosecution are for Judge Walker to decide. Those are questions of law and process that require careful analysis of precedent and policy.
But the factual question—whether there was sufficient evidence—is answerable by looking at what actually exists.
And what exists is 115,000 pages of evidence so voluminous that experienced defense attorneys need two extra weeks just to process it.
If Judge Walker accepts the false premise that career prosecutors properly found insufficient evidence—a claim James made explicitly in her motion and that the amicus briefs repeated—he risks creating a dangerous precedent:
Any defendant with political connections can claim vindictive prosecution simply by alleging their indictment followed political pressure—even when overwhelming documentary evidence exists and was available before any alleged political involvement.
That’s not protecting constitutional rights. That’s providing a “get out of jail free” card to politically connected defendants who committed well-documented crimes.
The vindictive prosecution doctrine exists to prevent the government from punishing people for exercising constitutional rights. It’s a critical protection.
But it’s not supposed to shield wealthy, politically powerful defendants from prosecution when substantial evidence of systematic fraud exists—evidence that predates any alleged political motivation by decades.
The 40-year pattern of fraud documented in public records began in the 1980s. My forensic investigations were published in February 2025—before any alleged political pressure. The FHFA criminal referral came in summer 2025. The FBI investigation ran for five months under Siebert’s watch.
The evidence has always been there. The only thing that changed was whether a prosecutor had the courage to act on it.
Documents Don’t Lie
The fraud is extensively documented in public records: phantom mortgages appearing on financial disclosures that don’t exist in property records, real mortgages never disclosed, contradictory sworn statements to different government entities, mathematical impossibilities like 400% loan-to-value ratios, and a 40-year pattern spanning multiple properties in multiple states.
Every fact is checkable. Every document is real. For the complete forensic analysis, see my previous investigations linked throughout this article.
The FBI investigation that Siebert oversaw had subpoena power to obtain bank records, email communications, witness interviews, phone records, internal lender documents—everything a private investigator cannot access.
And now we know that investigation—combined with continued work after Siebert resigned—has generated 115,000+ pages of evidence that prosecutors are producing to James’s defense team.
When experienced prosecutors claim insufficient evidence while substantial fraud is documented in public records and the government is producing 115,000 pages of discovery, one of two things is happening:
- They’re lying about what the evidence shows, OR
- They’re redefining “sufficient” to mean “politically convenient”
Either way, it’s not justice.
The question isn’t whether Letitia James committed mortgage fraud. The public records prove she did. The question is whether Judge Walker will have the courage to let this prosecution proceed based on evidence—or whether he’ll accept a false “insufficient evidence” narrative that lets a politically powerful defendant escape accountability.
James’s own defense team just accidentally proved that Erik Siebert had no excuse except courage.
115,000 pages worth of no excuse.
Follow @SamAntar on X for updates on this investigation
Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.