Letitia James Files New Motion to Dismiss, Alleging ‘Outrageous Conduct’

James was indicted in October on the basis that she used her Virginia home as a rental property despite obtaining a loan under a different assumption.

New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks during a news conference, in New York, June 11, 2019. Mary Altaffer/AP Photo

New York Attorney General Letitia James said in court papers on Nov. 17 that Trump administration officials had engaged in “outrageous conduct” that should prompt a federal judge to dismiss the indictment alleging she committed mortgage fraud.

“Perhaps in one case before this court has there been a more shocking case of government conduct,” James’s attorneys said in the motion.

They are alleging that Justice Department attorneys and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte reached for a case against James and violated her right to due process.

James was indicted in October on the basis that she used her Virginia home as a rental property despite obtaining a loan under the assumption that she would not use it for those purposes.

“The scheme involved falsely representing the [property] as a secondary residence to obtain favorable mortgage terms, while using it as an investment property with no intended or actual personal occupancy or use by her,” the indictment reads.

James has denied wrongdoing and filed multiple motions to dismiss outside of the one filed on Nov. 17.

Each motion portrays the Trump administration as bypassing normal procedures to retaliate against James, who prosecuted then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2023.

She has long been considered one of his political foes.

Her latest motion alleges that the Trump administration turned Pulte’s agency into a “political weapon” and suggested he might have improperly or illegally accessed mortgage documents.

Her motion also targets Justice Department attorney Ed Martin, saying that he intended to create negative pre-indictment publicity about her and abused his authority to intimidate her into resigning.

She pointed to, among other things, Martin posing for a photo in front of her home in Brooklyn.

“It is clear Mr. Martin—a high-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice—undertook these strange antics to intimidate and prejudice AG James outside the bounds of DOJ and relevant ethics rules,” James’s motion reads.

The Justice Department and Federal Housing Finance Agency did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment before publication.

James’s indictment followed a criminal referral letter from Pulte in April.

James and former FBI Director James Comey have noted the proximity of their indictments to a TruthSocial post Trump published on Sept. 20.

“Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ’same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, [U.S. Sen.] Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia [James]??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,'” it read.

Less than 48 hours after that post, the Justice Department appointed Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Her predecessor, Erik Siebert, departed amid reporting that he resisted indicting James.

James’s motion also cites reporting that prosecutors didn’t find clear evidence against her.

“The government engaged in a series of illegal and extraordinary maneuvers to install Lindsey Halligan as the purported U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virgina when no one else would bring the indictment against AG James,” the motion reads.

James’s attorneys argued that the “only credential” Halligan, a former White House adviser, had was “loyalty.”

They acknowledged, however, that “these violations do not fit neatly within pre-existing ‘outrageous government conduct’ jurisprudence, or within other clear categories of due process violations.”

“But the administration of justice in this case has been irreparably tainted,” they added.

If James loses this motion, she could still prevail on two other motions to dismiss.

One alleges a vindictive prosecution, while the other questions the legitimacy of Halligan’s appointment.

James is asking the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the Justice Department wouldn’t be able to bring the same claims against her after dismissal.

In a joint hearing on Nov. 13, Comey’s and James’s attorneys attempted to persuade a federal judge that Halligan, who was the only prosecutor to sign their indictments, was invalidly appointed.

Federal law allows the attorney general to fill vacant U.S. attorney spots, but debate has emerged over how that replacement should, in turn, be replaced.

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 546, Congress allows interim attorneys to serve for 120 days, further providing that district courts “may appoint” a U.S. attorney to fill vacancies at the end of that timeframe if the Senate hasn’t already appointed a replacement.

Attorneys for both Comey and James told U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie that Halligan’s appointment was illegal because it occurred 244 days after Siebert’s appointment—falling outside the 120-day timeframe that federal law set up for interim appointments.

And, they alleged, because the administration didn’t obtain Senate approval, it also violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

The Justice Department disputed the defense’s interpretation of the law, arguing instead that the law didn’t confine the attorney general to an initial 120 days.

Rather, it said, the law allowed for successive appointments of attorneys, who would each have 120-day limits on their time in office.