Letitia James has acknowledged that she is in legal hot water by hiring big-gun criminal defense attorney Abbe David Lowell. (If that name sounds familiar, it's because Lowell was one of Hunter Biden's lawyers during his special counsel probe — which resulted in gun and tax charges for the then-first son.)
To be precise, James herself didn't hire Lowell; her office did. "The attorney general’s office said that Lowell was hired by the attorney general’s office and not retained personally by James," reports the Times Union. Yes, that means taxpayers are footing her legal bills. Neat trick.
Lowell sent a six-page letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday. His missive was a rebuttal to the criminal referral previously sent to Bondi by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte.
Read about Pulte's criminal referral here: BOOM: Feds Refer Letitia James to DOJ for Criminal Prosecution
Lowell's letter was a posturing attempt to wave away the numerous, er, inconsistencies in James's real estate dealings over the past 40-plus years. Oddly, all of these innocent mistakes occurred in the direction of more favorable terms for Tish and her family member-partners. Quelle coïncidence!
The first of these happy accidents in James's favor was her claim on a 2023 specific power of attorney that she intended to make a Virginia home her primary residence — while she was firing up her lawfair trial against Trump in her role as N.Y. Attorney General.
Lowell explained that kindly old Aunt Tish was simply helping her niece purchase the home as the younger woman's residence and had made that clear in earlier emails to the mortgage broker:
In 2023, Ms. James assisted her niece, Shamice Thompson-Hairston, who needed financial support, with the down payment to purchase a home in Norfolk, Virginia. The mortgage application required only one individual to live at the property. Director Pulte cherry-picked an August 17, 2023 power of attorney that mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James’ principal residence and at the same time absolutely ignored her very clear and all caps statement two weeks earlier to the mortgage loan broker that “[t]his property WILL NOT be my primary residence[.] It will be Shamice’s primary residence.” Exhibit A. The broker understood this, and that Ms. James was not a Virginia resident, and replied, “Section 4 indicates that the property will be occupied as a primary residence for Shamice. . . . Your declaration is marked as a non-occupying co-borrower.”
That's nice, that such a conversation occurred offline two weeks prior to the closing. How strange that the error later appeared on the POA. It's also odd that such a persnickety real estate-expert lawyer as Ms. James, who has gone to such great legal lengths to ensure others dot their i's and cross their t's, herself neglected to at least make a handwritten correction to the document before signing it.
Did this innocent mistake affect the final mortgage terms in any way? That's the sort of thing an investigation could clear up promptly.
The next issue Lowell takes on in his letter is James's multi-family residence in Brooklyn. The building's official Certificate of Occupancy (CO), issued in 2001 — just two weeks before James closed on the property — describes it as a five-unit dwelling. But on every single financing document on record, James lists it as a four-unit — dropping it out of the commercial property classification and gaining eligibility for far less expensive loan, insurance, and banking fees.
Director Pulte points to a 24-year-old certificate of occupancy listing the property as having five units, despite that the property has functioned as a four-unit residence for the past 24 years since Ms. James bought it. In fact, a document he is well aware of, the August 23, 2011 Home Affordable Modification Program application, confirms it as being a four-unit property. Worse yet, Director Pulte ignores altogether the other New York City records that list the Brooklyn property as a four-unit property, including the NYC Department of Finance property record listing the Brooklyn property’s Building Class as “C3 – Four Families” for tax purposes (e.g., 4 residential units). Exhibit B. In addition, the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) lists the Brooklyn property as having “4” “A Units” and “0” “B Units” demonstrating, again, that Ms. James’ Brooklyn residence has been used as a four-unit residence since 2001. Exhibit C.
In other words, there is a discrepancy between NYC departments regarding official documentation of the number of dwellings within the building. As Lowell himself documents, James ran with the more advantageous narrative — the building has four units — rather than the information the Department of Buildings has on file. Whichever description is the truth, James is in violation of one sort or another.
"Occupying a building in a manner inconsistent with its Certificate of Occupancy is a direct violation of New York building codes," notes fraud investigator Sam Antar:
Lowell wants us to believe James has been innocently living in a “four-unit” building for 24 years. But if that’s true, why did she never file for an amended Certificate of Occupancy? The answer is simple: Changing the designation would require inspections, compliance with current codes, and substantial documentation. It was far more convenient to maintain the fiction of a four-unit building while benefiting from the legal existence of a fifth unit.
Once again, an investigation would clear this matter up, and we could all go on with our lives. Surely, an honest-as-the-day-is-long AG would want that to happen as soon as possible.
Finally, Lowell takes on that awkward mortgage paperwork that states in two different places that Tish and her father, Robert James, are actually married:
In 1983, Ms. James’ father, Robert James sought to buy a home for his family in the Jamaica neighborhood of Queens, New York. He asked his daughter (then a few years out of school) to help by allowing him to add her name to the mortgage application. Mr. James filled out the mortgage material (wherein he described their relationship as being “spouses”) and purchased the home without his daughter’s involvement. Yet, in a predictable pattern here, Director Pulte cites a mistaken May 20, 1983, document Mr. James filled out to cast his baseless allegation while again ignoring the other supporting documentation, one on the same exact date that correctly describes Ms. James as being his daughter. The actual May 20, 1983 property deed for the Jamaica, Queens residence lists Robert James “and Letitia James, his daughter.”
There's one of those darn innocent mistakes again! Hmm… is Lowell making another innocent mistake when he claims Robert bought the building "without his daughter’s involvement?" Letitia did sign the paperwork alongside him (on the same page that listed them as spouses). Maybe I'm in the minority, but when I sign paperwork for something as significant and expensive as a real estate transaction, I read it over to make sure it's accurate.
Lowell says that the deed lists Tish as Robert's daughter, but so what? The mortgage is the concerning item here: did the pair receive a lower rate as husband and wife than they would have as father and daughter?
At the very, very least, James's web of questionable representations and statements must be thoroughly investigated, and not just by the feds. If only there were unbiased, trustworthy, and professional DAs in the blue cities and states where James leveraged her real estate empire. Sigh — a girl can dream.
In case you missed it: Greenpeace Loses Dakota Access Pipeline Trial, Faces Bankruptcy and Extinction
Sorry, Tish: The courtesy of claiming it was all just innocent mistakes and oversights is not a thing to which you are entitled. You should have thought about that before you started your crusade against a past and future president. Even after your biased, weaponized, malicious prosecution, you might still have been able to take a bye for one mistake. But this many? Yeah… no.
Enjoy your probe; we Americans certainly will.
Lowell's letter can be viewed below:
Lowell NY AG James Letter to AG Bondi by PJ Media on Scribd
We writers at PJ Media are serious about reporting game-changing news that you will never hear about from the lamestream media. Help us get these important stories into the light of day — join the crew at a PJ Media VIP! Access our exclusive reports, analysis, podcasts, liveblogs, and — my favorite — our interactive comments sections. And best of all, no ads! Right now, you can use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your annual membership — that's a full year of PJ Media VIP for under $20! Please support PJ Media today!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member