Liberal Forum

RebelGator » 11 Oct 2025, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 8:23 am

Baboons make for poor attorneys.

She's not even good at being a token.
 

Roshambo » 11 Oct 2025, 8:24 am » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 8:24 am

The situation is complex. 

No it isn't. It's characterized as complex to confuse the simple minded. 

Regurgitating the talking points doesn't make them true. 

The *** lied that an investment property would be a permanent residence, in order to secure a far better rate. Pretty **** simple. 

She is an attorney. Now, I know, I know - she is only a a woman and a black one at that, a mere token. But that does not absolve her.

Cannonpointer » 11 Oct 2025, 11:10 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 11:10 pm

She changed it almost immediately after being caught.

  That's usually how that **** works..."producing, not presenting the proper paperwork"...

ROG62 » 11 Oct 2025, 11:20 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 11:20 pm

  That's usually how that **** works..."producing, not presenting the proper paperwork"...

She **** around.
She's finding out.
That fact chaps vadges. 
 

DeezerShoove » 11 Oct 2025, 4:45 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 4:45 pm

Your continuous spew of what you deem as clever is childish babble to me.

You are like a cheeseburger made with imitation squirt can liquid gold.

Mt Grown Adult and not a funny boner in your brain. And absolutely useless middle of the road policy. You have no blood in the game.I respect your choice, but why you cut my heart out with shunshorship is frustrating.

I guess y'all fear my content.  I scroll by @roadkill  s you tubes and notice the headline and scroll on by..  Whatever this spam argument is is just complete and utter bullshyt and you know it.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 11 Oct 2025, 11:08 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 11:08 pm

She lied through her teeth to get a lower rate.

Let's see what happens. 

For a preview, I present the fafo chart.

Typically, the rates for investment properties are approximately 0.5% to 0.75% above the prevailing market rates. In the case of a second home or vacation residence, the difference is only marginally higher.
Her "unearned profits" from the reduced mortgage rate totaled around $18,933 throughout the duration of the loan.
This equates to $631.10 annually. I am confident that James would not intentionally engage in fraudulent activities for such a trivial sum.

 

Cannonpointer » 11 Oct 2025, 11:09 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 11:09 pm

She lied.

Let's see what happens.

Let's see what happens.

 
 

Cannonpointer » 11 Oct 2025, 11:14 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 11:14 pm

No it isn't. It's characterized as complex to confuse the simple minded. 
 

@ROG62  

I will not beg to differ with you; rather, I will express my differing opinion.
The Second Home Rider has consistently been a source of confusion, indeed on April 3, 2019 Fannie Mae revised the guidelines, (though the rules themselves remain unchanged) to assist individuals in comprehending the process of converting their second home into a rental property.
Frankly, the terminology is still intricate (as is typical of government documents), but it is significantly improved and much clearer than earlier iterations.
Irrespective of the language used, the essential point is this: you are permitted to rent out your second home, even if it is financed with a Fannie Mae loan.

The Second Home Rider does not forbid the rental of the property. The restriction within the Second Home Rider pertains to relinquishing control over rental decisions to a third party, such as a rental agent, rather than prohibiting rentals altogether.
If the Rider intended to ban rentals, it could have explicitly stated: "The Borrower shall not rent out the property."
However, it did not do so. By imposing a limitation on the engagement of third-party rental agents, the Rider implicitly permits rentals.

If the Rider does indeed prohibit rentals for more than half of the first year, then the date and duration of the lease in the James case would be pertinent, although this information is not disclosed in the indictment.
Nonetheless, I am uncertain if this truly matters, as James should prevail simply due to the ambiguity present in the Rider. The Second Home Rider represents a notably poor example of legal drafting (as do many Fannie/Freddie uniform documents). This ambiguity suggests that James should be able to counter the assertion that she “knowingly” participated in fraud.

Both allegations against James, 18 USC 1014 and 18 USC 1344, necessitate that her actions were performed “knowingly,” and the Supreme Court has recently determined, in relation to another statute, that “knowingly” pertains to the defendant’s subjective understanding. The in pari materia principle indicates that the interpretation of “knowingly” should extend to the statutes under which James was charged. It will be exceedingly challenging for the prosecution to demonstrate that James subjectively believed she was prohibited from renting out the property at the time she executed the mortgage, given the vagueness of the contractual language.

The indictment seeks to establish James’s subjective intent by highlighting that she later classified the property as a rental on her tax returns; however, this does not serve as evidence of her intent at the time of signing the mortgage. Rather, it merely reflects the fact that the property was utilized as a rental (which is permissible in any event). Furthermore, it actually strengthens James’s position as it is clear that the property was being used as a rental, which is allowed.

The Second Home Rider also has an exception for “extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower’s control.” The mortgage was from August 2020, in the middle of the COVID pandemic. That opens the door to an extenuating circumstances argument.

Still, let me humor the argument that Linsey Halligan is a true believer in fiat justitia ruat caelum. Is there any plausible legal interpretation that supports the indictment?    No

Putting this all together, this is an indictment that probably should not have been brought under the DOJ’s own guidelines: there isn’t sufficient evidence to even reach a conclusion of probable cause, much less that the evidence would be sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict.
 
 
 

Roshambo » 12 Oct 2025, 4:29 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 4:29 am

@ROG62  

I will not beg to differ with you; rather, I will express my differing opinion.
The Second Home Rider has consistently been a source of confusion, indeed on April 3, 2019 Fannie Mae revised the guidelines, (though the rules themselves remain unchanged) to assist individuals in comprehending the process of converting their second home into a rental property.
Frankly, the terminology is still intricate (as is typical of government documents), but it is significantly improved and much clearer than earlier iterations.
Irrespective of the language used, the essential point is this: you are permitted to rent out your second home, even if it is financed with a Fannie Mae loan.

Putting this all together, this is an indictment that probably should not have been brought under the DOJ’s own guidelines: there isn’t sufficient evidence to even reach a conclusion of probable cause, much less that the evidence would be sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict.

Well, Rosh..  You do have something in you after all.  You wrote all that without help of AI?   Man, what the hell is in your cofveve?

Thanks for sharing. @ROG62   should also bear in mind we arer talking about an $18,000 mistake over 30 years, if it even was one as you point out. But he'll double down and spend $18 Million of our tax dollars on lawyers fees just to prove their senseless points and lose.

The Farmers are on the local talk show this morning. The host was hatin' on Trump, on the Pro Trump Station.   Trump broke to 10% Republican dissaproval.  He has double digited it now.   The 38% thumbs up holds though. I did not look closer at all the microtrends.

The exponential function of hate is gonna pop.  Might be No Kings 10/18.  The Insurrection Act Up is impending.

 
 

JohnnyYou » 12 Oct 2025, 2:43 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 2:43 am

I guess y'all fear my content.  

What content is that,  music videos?

Get off the dope, it's warping reality for you.

JohnnyYou » 12 Oct 2025, 5:28 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 5:28 am

Well, Rosh..  You do have something in you after all.  You wrote all that without help of AI?   Man, what the hell is in your cofveve?

Thanks for sharing. @ROG62   should also bear in mind we arer talking about an $18,000 mistake over 30 years, if it even was one as you point out. But he'll double down and spend $18 Million of our tax dollars on lawyers fees just to prove their senseless points and lose.

The Farmers are on the local talk show this morning. The host was hatin' on Trump, on the Pro Trump Station.   Trump broke to 10% Republican dissaproval.  He has double digited it now.   The 38% thumbs up holds though. I did not look closer at all the microtrends.

The exponential function of hate is gonna pop.  Might be No Kings 10/18.  The Insurrection Act Up is impending.

for someone who's constantly whining about his personal economic woes about to enter into retirement without a pot to piss in, you make it sound like $18k is chump change...

funny thing here, squarehead, why aren't you balking that James blew thru and estimated $5-10 million going after the DON...

she started out with a wish in one hand and a pile of **** in the other...which turned into reality?

oh, and now she's turning to your pahtee to pay for her legal fees...we certainly know who's payroll she's on...
 

Roshambo » 12 Oct 2025, 4:29 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 4:29 am

@ROG62  

I will not beg to differ with you; rather, I will express my differing opinion.
The Second Home Rider has consistently been a source of confusion, indeed on April 3, 2019 Fannie Mae revised the guidelines, (though the rules themselves remain unchanged) to assist individuals in comprehending the process of converting their second home into a rental property.
Frankly, the terminology is still intricate (as is typical of government documents), but it is significantly improved and much clearer than earlier iterations.
Irrespective of the language used, the essential point is this: you are permitted to rent out your second home, even if it is financed with a Fannie Mae loan.

The Second Home Rider does not forbid the rental of the property. The restriction within the Second Home Rider pertains to relinquishing control over rental decisions to a third party, such as a rental agent, rather than prohibiting rentals altogether.
If the Rider intended to ban rentals, it could have explicitly stated: "The Borrower shall not rent out the property."
However, it did not do so. By imposing a limitation on the engagement of third-party rental agents, the Rider implicitly permits rentals.

If the Rider does indeed prohibit rentals for more than half of the first year, then the date and duration of the lease in the James case would be pertinent, although this information is not disclosed in the indictment.
Nonetheless, I am uncertain if this truly matters, as James should prevail simply due to the ambiguity present in the Rider. The Second Home Rider represents a notably poor example of legal drafting (as do many Fannie/Freddie uniform documents). This ambiguity suggests that James should be able to counter the assertion that she “knowingly” participated in fraud.

Both allegations against James, 18 USC 1014 and 18 USC 1344, necessitate that her actions were performed “knowingly,” and the Supreme Court has recently determined, in relation to another statute, that “knowingly” pertains to the defendant’s subjective understanding. The in pari materia principle indicates that the interpretation of “knowingly” should extend to the statutes under which James was charged. It will be exceedingly challenging for the prosecution to demonstrate that James subjectively believed she was prohibited from renting out the property at the time she executed the mortgage, given the vagueness of the contractual language.

The indictment seeks to establish James’s subjective intent by highlighting that she later classified the property as a rental on her tax returns; however, this does not serve as evidence of her intent at the time of signing the mortgage. Rather, it merely reflects the fact that the property was utilized as a rental (which is permissible in any event). Furthermore, it actually strengthens James’s position as it is clear that the property was being used as a rental, which is allowed.

The Second Home Rider also has an exception for “extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower’s control.” The mortgage was from August 2020, in the middle of the COVID pandemic. That opens the door to an extenuating circumstances argument.

Still, let me humor the argument that Linsey Halligan is a true believer in fiat justitia ruat caelum. Is there any plausible legal interpretation that supports the indictment?    No

Putting this all together, this is an indictment that probably should not have been brought under the DOJ’s own guidelines: there isn’t sufficient evidence to even reach a conclusion of probable cause, much less that the evidence would be sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict.

link?
 

Cannonpointer » 11 Oct 2025, 11:54 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2025, 11:54 pm

She **** around.
She's finding out.
That fact chaps vadges.

unfortunately I think she'll skate...her legal fees are being paid for by her employer, the democratic pahtee..

and they're going full tilt boogie painting a very dark picture in the MSM court of perceived public opinion, disparaging the prosecution, etc, etc, etc...
 

ROG62 » 12 Oct 2025, 6:26 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 6:26 am

link?

 
 

ROG62 » 12 Oct 2025, 6:30 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 6:30 am

unfortunately I think she'll skate...her legal fees are being paid for by her employer, the democratic pahtee..

and they're going full tilt boogie painting a very dark picture in the MSM court of perceived public opinion, disparaging the prosecution, etc, etc, etc...

There is no "case".  There isn’t sufficient evidence to even reach a conclusion of probable cause, much less that the evidence would be sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict. A second home rider violation is not a criminal offense, but it is a violation of your mortgage agreement and can lead to serious consequences, including being in default, a demand for immediate loan repayment, or even foreclosure.
 
 

ROG62 » 12 Oct 2025, 6:24 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 6:24 am

for someone who's constantly whining about his personal economic woes about to enter into retirement without a pot to piss in, you make it sound like $18k is chump change...

funny thing here, squarehead, why aren't you balking that James blew thru and estimated $5-10 million going after the DON...

she started out with a wish in one hand and a pile of **** in the other...which turned into reality?

oh, and now she's turning to your pahtee to pay for her legal fees...we certainly know who's payroll she's on...

LOL..   Yes 18K is  a lot more to me than those in power.  You say you are rich as phook.   How many of your farmer friends are phooked with silos full of soybeans and no party to go to?

Saving the Constitution ain't cheap evidently.. Jack Smith is funded by someone right now and coming back at the Trumpocalypse.

He's got files, tons of proof evidently..  As far as I was concerned Trump was at maximum shyt on shynola  on Jan 7th 2021.
 
 

JohnnyYou » 12 Oct 2025, 5:28 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 5:28 am

Well, Rosh..  You do have something in you after all.  You wrote all that without help of AI?   Man, what the hell is in your cofveve?

Thanks for sharing. @ROG62   should also bear in mind we arer talking about an $18,000 mistake over 30 years, if it even was one as you point out. But he'll double down and spend $18 Million of our tax dollars on lawyers fees just to prove their senseless points and lose.

The Farmers are on the local talk show this morning. The host was hatin' on Trump, on the Pro Trump Station.   Trump broke to 10% Republican dissaproval.  He has double digited it now.   The 38% thumbs up holds though. I did not look closer at all the microtrends.

The exponential function of hate is gonna pop.  Might be No Kings 10/18.  The Insurrection Act Up is impending.

covered

Roshambo » 12 Oct 2025, 4:24 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 4:24 am

Typically, the rates for investment properties are approximately 0.5% to 0.75% above the prevailing market rates. In the case of a second home or vacation residence, the difference is only marginally higher.
Her "unearned profits" from the reduced mortgage rate totaled around $18,933 throughout the duration of the loan.
This equates to $631.10 annually. I am confident that James would not intentionally engage in fraudulent activities for such a trivial sum.

A relative works in the real estate industry, and I also served as a Contract Administrator.
 
 
 

Roshambo » 12 Oct 2025, 7:06 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 7:06 am

covered

Thanks for doubling down and losing mine and everyopne elses tax dollars on a phooking bail out from shyt policy.

Obama was the Greatest Republican President of All Time.. He should have let the too big to fail flounder.

Rosh,  you seem to have a brain and may understand how everything is interconnected.  But I gather you don't pay income tax in the US.

Have you heard of Acre Trader yet? Look it up and JD Vances connection.
 
 
 

JohnnyYou » 12 Oct 2025, 7:08 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 7:08 am

Thanks for doubling down and losing mine and everyine elses tax dollars on a phooking bail out from shytr policy.

Rosh,  you seem to have a brain and may understand how everything is interconnected.  But I gather you don't pay income tax in the US.

I pay my share of income tax and Social Security.
 
 

Roshambo » 12 Oct 2025, 7:10 am » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2025, 7:10 am

I pay my share of income tax an Social Security.

And thus your share of the farmer bailout we wouldn't need had you voted for the Black Lady.

The 20 Bill to Argentina was particularly shytty.