Leteicia James has been

[Freddy Figbottom]

Trump saved countless millions and not just 18k by using fraud to get lower interests than he otherwise would have got without the fraudulent filings.

the bank said they were fine with the loan.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

no argument presented.

Yes. You clearly didn't present an argument.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

the bank said they were fine with the loan.

No bank complained about James' loan. Do you have the same standard for both?

The issue in the James' case is whether she complied with the regulations on renting out the home. If she did then there is no crime.

 

[FastLane]

Really? You have seem photocopies of the documents? The government didn't even bother to include the documents in their indictment so how does he even know if he has the correct documents?

By the way, he couldn't legally have her tax documents so I wonder how he got them.

He didn't review the tax documents. He only reviewed the mortgage and insurance . I'm sure the DOJ legally obtained the IRS documents. I have heard discussion that she LEGALLY claimed the two homes in Virginia as rental properties to the IRS. Which is the opposite of what she swore to on her mortgage documents which I have seen. Some reporter when to the two homes in question and the people inside defiantly aren't James. The documents have Leticia James signature on them and a notary stamp and she has not contested the authenticity.


This is what Nate the lawyer says:

 

[FastLane]

No bank complained about James' loan. Do you have the same standard for both?

The issue in the James' case is whether she complied with the regulations on renting out the home. If she did then there is no crime.

The FHFA complained after reviewing the documents they fell that James committed occupancy fraud.

 

[QP!]

Here is the KEY and CORE of the James case that magats like @FastLane and @T. A. Gardner ignore.

There is no crime if someone buys a property today and puts on the loan doc's they intend to live in it as a primary residence but then they change their mind at some point after and rent it out. THAT IS NOT A CRIME.

It is only a crime if you KNEW ALL ALONG you had no intention to live in it but purposely filed it that way to get a lower loan.

So to get a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Prosecution must prove they know what they person was thinking and no matter what the person may tell you they were thinking 'they are wrong and you should have no doubt of that'.


it is why STATE OF MIND cases are never brought without strong supporting material such as a witness who may have had a discussion with the person or some emails or other documents exposing the person knew.

The entire case comes down to prosecutors being able to prove this core of their case, without which there is no crime....

"...when in truth and fact as James then knew..."

The government must prove they 'know what James knew at the time'.

 

[FastLane]

the bank said they were fine with the loan.

The Bank use their own real estate appraisers. They did not depend on Trump's value.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Here is the KEY and CORE of the James case that magats like @FastLane and @T. A. Gardner ignore.

There is no crime if someone buys a property today and puts on the loan doc's they intend to live in it as a primary residence but then they change their mind at some point after and rent it out. THAT IS NOT A CRIME.

It is only a crime if you KNEW ALL ALONG you had no intention to live in it but purposely filed it that way to get a lower loan.

So to get a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Prosecution must prove they know what they person was thinking and no matter what the person may tell you they were thinking 'they are wrong and you should have no doubt of that'.


it is why STATE OF MIND cases are never brought without strong supporting material such as a witness who may have had a discussion with the person or some emails or other documents exposing the person knew.

The entire case comes down to prosecutors being able to prove this core of their case, without which there is no crime....

"...when in truth and fact as James then knew..."

The government must prove they 'know what James knew at the time'.

FAFO time.

do better.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have yet to see you arguing this for the Letitia James indictment. Obviously this isn't an actual standard you believe in. It is simply something you say because you are in a cult and have to absolve your cult leader.

Because it doesn't apply to James' case.

Trump took out loans with a private commercial bank to finance something. That's solely between him and the bank. They came to terms, agreed, and made the loan which Trump paid back. The bank(s) were financial experts and did their own due diligence on the loan along with what Trump provided. It was between two private parties.

James took out mortgages on real estate (homes, etc.) that were government backed. The government relied on the mortgage broker and James' statements on documents as to the purpose of the real estate, credit worthiness, etc. The documents stated right on them that lying or falsifying anything was subject to potential criminal charges. That is, the government, a third party to the loan was relying on the honesty of the person asking for the loan to set the terms of that loan.

The GOVERNMENT found that she lied, repeatedly, on forms to get better terms on the loans she took out. The government has now said that is subject to criminal charges and has charged her for lying on the forms--the ones she knowingly signed under penalty of law.

That's the difference. The government wasn't involved in Trump's loans. James made a third-party case to get Trump, something you don't see in civil lawsuits very often. That is, she claimed, somehow, the government had an interest in a set of loans between private parties where there was no government involvement at the time of the loan.

In her case, the government was involved right from the start. The government clearly informed her that lying could result in criminal charges. She went ahead and lied on the forms anyway. Now the government is charging her for lying and defrauding them of interest and such they otherwise would have collected.

It's interesting to note, that James and her supporters are not claiming she's innocent or that the charges aren't true but rather trying to make the case that the charges are purely political, vindictive, and being pursued to 'get' her.

It's sort of that old saw on how to litigate a case:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If you can't argue the facts or law, then bang your shoe on the table and shout about how the whole proceeding is a sham and show trial.

James is reduced to that third one. She has neither the law or facts on her side and she knows it. Her only recourse is to hope the case is tossed out on partisan political grounds.

 

[FastLane]

Here is the KEY and CORE of the James case that magats like @FastLane and @T. A. Gardner ignore.

There is no crime if someone buys a property today and puts on the loan doc's they intend to live in it as a primary residence but then they change their mind at some point after and rent it out. THAT IS NOT A CRIME.

It is only a crime if you KNEW ALL ALONG you had no intention to live in it but purposely filed it that way to get a lower loan.

So to get a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Prosecution must prove they know what they person was thinking and no matter what the person may tell you they were thinking 'they are wrong and you should have no doubt of that'.


it is why STATE OF MIND cases are never brought without strong supporting material such as a witness who may have had a discussion with the person or some emails or other documents exposing the person knew.

The entire case comes down to prosecutors being able to prove this core of their case, without which there is no crime....

"...when in truth and fact as James then knew..."

The government must prove they 'know what James knew at the time'.

She claims the 1st Virginia home was her primary residence. She claimed the second home was a "vacation" home that she would also occupy and hot rent out for at least a year. In fact she quickly rented both of them out.

 

[QP!]

She claims the 1st Virginia home was her primary residence. She claimed the second home was a "vacation" home that she would also occupy and hot rent out for at least a year. In fact she quickly rented both of them out.

Right.

So give me the proof you have that she did not plan that at first and then change her mind after.

I do not want what you believe and want the proof as court cases over state of mind are rare as they are near impossible to win without proof.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Banks didn't complain for James' loan either. So there is no victim there if no victim for Trump.

The banks weren't the underwriting party in James' mortgages, the government was. The government relied on James' statements and stated clearly on the forms she knowingly signed that lying was subject to criminal charges.

Trump and the banks he went through were private parties to which the government had ZERO interest or participation.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here is the KEY and CORE of the James case that magats like @FastLane and @T. A. Gardner ignore.

There is no crime if someone buys a property today and puts on the loan doc's they intend to live in it as a primary residence but then they change their mind at some point after and rent it out. THAT IS NOT A CRIME.

It is only a crime if you KNEW ALL ALONG you had no intention to live in it but purposely filed it that way to get a lower loan.

So to get a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Prosecution must prove they know what they person was thinking and no matter what the person may tell you they were thinking 'they are wrong and you should have no doubt of that'.


it is why STATE OF MIND cases are never brought without strong supporting material such as a witness who may have had a discussion with the person or some emails or other documents exposing the person knew.

The entire case comes down to prosecutors being able to prove this core of their case, without which there is no crime....

"...when in truth and fact as James then knew..."

The government must prove they 'know what James knew at the time'.

Exactly. That and other statements she made on various mortgage applications that are part of this case. That isn't the only time she lied on mortgage documents to the government.

 

[QP!]

Exactly. That and other statements she made on various mortgage applications that are part of this case. That isn't the only time she lied on mortgage documents to the government.

NO VICTIM, NO CRIME!

signed T.A.Gardner

 

[QP!]

Exactly. That and other statements she made on various mortgage applications that are part of this case. That isn't the only time she lied on mortgage documents to the government.

Also please quote 'proof' of lie as opposed to change of mind just so we can see what the proof you have seen.

it is not illegal to intend to use it is primary and then change you mind at some point after, so the key is the PROOF you have this was not that.

Please share it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

NO VICTIM, NO CRIME!

signed T.A.Gardner

The government was the victim in James' case, and it stated on the documents she signed that lying was subject to criminal penalty.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Because it doesn't apply to James' case.

Trump took out loans with a private commercial bank to finance something. That's solely between him and the bank. They came to terms, agreed, and made the loan which Trump paid back. The bank(s) were financial experts and did their own due diligence on the loan along with what Trump provided. It was between two private parties.

James took out mortgages on real estate (homes, etc.) that were government backed. The government relied on the mortgage broker and James' statements on documents as to the purpose of the real estate, credit worthiness, etc. The documents stated right on them that lying or falsifying anything was subject to potential criminal charges. That is, the government, a third party to the loan was relying on the honesty of the person asking for the loan to set the terms of that loan.

The GOVERNMENT found that she lied, repeatedly, on forms to get better terms on the loans she took out. The government has now said that is subject to criminal charges and has charged her for lying on the forms--the ones she knowingly signed under penalty of law.

That's the difference. The government wasn't involved in Trump's loans. James made a third-party case to get Trump, something you don't see in civil lawsuits very often. That is, she claimed, somehow, the government had an interest in a set of loans between private parties where there was no government involvement at the time of the loan.

In her case, the government was involved right from the start. The government clearly informed her that lying could result in criminal charges. She went ahead and lied on the forms anyway. Now the government is charging her for lying and defrauding them of interest and such they otherwise would have collected.

It's interesting to note, that James and her supporters are not claiming she's innocent or that the charges aren't true but rather trying to make the case that the charges are purely political, vindictive, and being pursued to 'get' her.

It's sort of that old saw on how to litigate a case:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If you can't argue the facts or law, then bang your shoe on the table and shout about how the whole proceeding is a sham and show trial.

James is reduced to that third one. She has neither the law or facts on her side and she knows it. Her only recourse is to hope the case is tossed out on partisan political grounds.

excellent long form answer.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Also please quote 'proof' of lie as opposed to change of mind just so we can see what the proof you have seen.

it is not illegal to intend to use it is primary and then change you mind at some point after, so the key is the PROOF you have this was not that.

Please share it.

Trivial objections fallacy in the form of demand for more evidence.

James made false statements on the documents. The government stated on those documents that doing so was subject to criminal charges. James was charged. How hard is that to grasp?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Here is the KEY and CORE of the James case that magats like @FastLane and @T. A. Gardner ignore.

There is no crime if someone buys a property today and puts on the loan doc's they intend to live in it as a primary residence but then they change their mind at some point after and rent it out. THAT IS NOT A CRIME.

It is only a crime if you KNEW ALL ALONG you had no intention to live in it but purposely filed it that way to get a lower loan.

So to get a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Prosecution must prove they know what they person was thinking and no matter what the person may tell you they were thinking 'they are wrong and you should have no doubt of that'.


it is why STATE OF MIND cases are never brought without strong supporting material such as a witness who may have had a discussion with the person or some emails or other documents exposing the person knew.

The entire case comes down to prosecutors being able to prove this core of their case, without which there is no crime....

"...when in truth and fact as James then knew..."

The government must prove they 'know what James knew at the time'.

actually it's fraud.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here is the KEY and CORE of the James case that magats like @FastLane and @T. A. Gardner ignore.

There is no crime if someone buys a property today and puts on the loan doc's they intend to live in it as a primary residence but then they change their mind at some point after and rent it out. THAT IS NOT A CRIME.

It is only a crime if you KNEW ALL ALONG you had no intention to live in it but purposely filed it that way to get a lower loan.

So to get a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Prosecution must prove they know what they person was thinking and no matter what the person may tell you they were thinking 'they are wrong and you should have no doubt of that'.


it is why STATE OF MIND cases are never brought without strong supporting material such as a witness who may have had a discussion with the person or some emails or other documents exposing the person knew.

The entire case comes down to prosecutors being able to prove this core of their case, without which there is no crime....

"...when in truth and fact as James then knew..."

The government must prove they 'know what James knew at the time'.

In one case, James testified on the forms that the loan was for a primary residence in Maryland while she was serving as attorney general of New York State. New York's laws require the state's attorney general to reside within the state of New York.