Grand jury rejections, particularly when concerning high-profile figures, can say a lot about the legal process and public perception. The recent refusal by a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on alleged mortgage fraud charges is a prime example. This outcome, coming shortly after the dismissal of an earlier case based on a technicality, highlights some interesting dynamics. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempts to refile the case, and the subsequent “no true bill” returned by the grand jury, sends a very clear message: the evidence, or the way it was presented, wasn’t strong enough to warrant charges.… Continue reading
After a federal judge dismissed the initial charges, a grand jury declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James in a mortgage fraud case for the second time. The Justice Department, however, may seek indictment a third time, indicating the intensity of their efforts. The charges stemmed from accusations of false statements and bank fraud, but were initially thrown out due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor. The defense argued the appointment of Trump’s handpicked prosecutor was invalid, and the case has been met with claims of selective and vindictive prosecution.
Read More
New York State Attorney General Letitia James pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and false statements charges, which followed public calls for her prosecution from Donald Trump. The indictment alleges James falsely claimed she would use a Virginia home as a secondary residence to obtain favorable loan terms, while actually using it as an investment property. However, the charges were filed by Trump-appointed U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan over the objections of career prosecutors, who cited insufficient evidence and a lack of material profit by James. James is expected to move to dismiss the indictment, alleging Halligan’s improper appointment and asserting the case should be thrown out as a result.
Read More
Newly discovered documents challenge the Trump administration’s accusations that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud. The dispute centers on whether a federal housing regulator’s referral to the Department of Justice was supported by documents demonstrating criminal intent, and if Trump could lawfully remove a Fed governor. A loan estimate for Cook’s Atlanta property, obtained by Reuters, indicates she intended to use it as a vacation home, contradicting claims that she falsely declared multiple properties as primary residences. Cook has sued to prevent her removal, with a federal judge issuing a preliminary injunction allowing her to remain on the Fed while the suit proceeds.
Read More
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook characterized a condominium as a “vacation home” on a loan estimate, which could contradict claims of mortgage fraud. The Trump administration, seeking Cook’s removal, alleged she falsely claimed both the condo and another property as her primary residence simultaneously. Cook sued to block her firing and secured an injunction, although the administration has appealed the ruling. The Justice Department is investigating these claims, as misrepresenting a property’s primary residence status can impact mortgage terms.
Read More
Financial documents obtained by NBC News contradict accusations of mortgage fraud against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Records from a loan summary and Cook’s national security questionnaire indicate the Atlanta property was designated as a “vacation home” and a “2nd home,” respectively. This contradicts claims by figures like Bill Pulte and Donald Trump, who have accused Cook of misrepresenting the property as her primary residence for financial gain. Despite these documents, the Trump administration is still attempting to remove Cook from her role, and a federal judge has temporarily blocked her termination.
Read More
ProPublica’s investigation reveals that the Trump administration, which has vowed to pursue those who misrepresented their primary residences on mortgage applications, could face scrutiny within its own Cabinet. At least three Cabinet members—Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Sean Duffy, and Lee Zeldin—have obtained primary-residence mortgages for multiple properties concurrently. These findings, discovered through financial disclosures and mortgage records, mirror the types of loans that have been cited to target political rivals for potential mortgage fraud. While real estate experts note the practice is common and rarely prosecuted, the administration’s focus on this issue could create a conflict of interest, as some of its own members may have engaged in the same practice.
Read More
An Associated Press review revealed that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife, Angela Paxton, secured mortgages with inaccurate statements, claiming multiple properties as primary residences to obtain lower interest rates. This allowed them to improperly benefit from lower rates and potentially violated federal and state laws prohibiting false statements on mortgage documents. Furthermore, the Paxtons collected an improper homestead tax break on two of those homes at the same time. These revelations have political implications, especially given similar accusations against Democrats by the Trump administration and Paxton’s own past legal and political troubles.
Read More
Reports reveal Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his estranged wife, State Senator Angela Paxton, declared three homes as their primary residences on mortgage documents. This could have saved the couple significant money due to lower interest rates on primary homes, potentially raising concerns about mortgage fraud. Experts note that proving such a crime requires demonstrating active knowledge of the false statements. These revelations come shortly after Angela Paxton filed for divorce, citing adultery, adding further complexity to Paxton’s ongoing political career, including his run for U.S. Senate.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker