Federal judge rejects Letitia James’ motion in mortgage fraud lawsuit

Hold onto your hats, folks—a federal judge just shot down New York Attorney General Letitia James’ attempt to micromanage federal prosecutors in her ongoing mortgage fraud case.

In a ruling that’s got tongues wagging, the court denied James’ motion to force prosecutors to log every chat with the media, though it did mandate preserving all related records.

Let’s rewind to the start of this legal saga, where James, a prominent figure often at odds with conservative values, pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Judge Denies Media Communication Log Request

According to the indictment, back on Aug. 17, 2020, James secured a $109,600 loan for a modest three-bedroom home in Norfolk, Virginia, claiming she’d live there herself.

That little detail about occupancy reportedly snagged her nearly $19,000 in better mortgage terms, but prosecutors allege the property was never her home—instead, it housed her grandniece, Nakia Thompson, as a rental investment.

If convicted on both counts, James faces a staggering 60 years behind bars and a $2 million fine, a penalty that underscores the gravity of playing fast and loose with financial declarations.

Prosecutors’ Conduct Under Scrutiny

Fast forward to last week, when James was arraigned, her defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, filed a motion after reports surfaced about U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan exchanging encrypted Signal messages with a Lawfare senior editor, Anna Bower.

Those messages, set to vanish after eight hours, raised eyebrows, with Halligan reportedly questioning a New York Times story about Thompson’s testimony on rent payments for the property.

James’ team wanted a detailed log of all media interactions by prosecutors, arguing it was necessary to ensure fairness, but the court wasn’t buying what they were selling.

Court Rules on Evidence Preservation

U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee, called Halligan’s disappearing chats “unusual” but stopped short of labeling them improper or unethical.

In his ruling, Walker stated, “[T]he defendant does not demonstrate that it is necessary for the Court to order the government to track communications with the media in any particular form.”

Well, there you have it—sounds like the judge isn’t keen on playing nanny to either side’s PR strategies, though one wonders if this hands-off approach risks letting slippery communications slide under the radar.

No Gag Order, Just Compliance

Walker also declared, “The defendant does not demonstrate that a communication log is necessary, so the Court will not order the government to maintain one.”

Instead, he slapped a “litigation hold” on all records related to the case, ensuring nothing gets deleted, and reminded both sides to follow court rules without needing a babysitter.

Interestingly, the judge declined federal prosecutors’ request for a gag order on James, keeping the public discourse open, which is a small victory for transparency in a case already mired in political undertones.