Highlighting a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to charge her with bank fraud, New York Attorney General Letitia James appealed to a federal judge, seeking potentially revealing evidence if the judge declines to dismiss the “outrageous” case. She argues this prosecution is rooted in questionable origins.

In her 17-page motion to dismiss for “outrageous government conduct,” which supplements an earlier motion alleging selective and retaliatory prosecution, the Democratic AG claimed that Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte, along with DOJ official Ed Martin and interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, collaborated to inflate a weak theory into a federal case—purportedly to target President Trump’s political adversary and prove their allegiance.

Addressing U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, James urged that if the case is not dismissed due to “unprecedented, extensive, and outrageous misconduct,” then at minimum, the judge should mandate the release of “all communications among and between President Trump, AG Bondi, Ms. Halligan, Mr. Martin, Director Pulte, and their teams concerning AG James.”

James specifically criticized Pulte, suggesting that the basis for the FHFA director’s DOJ criminal mortgage fraud referral could be categorized as “outrageous government conduct” under three primary scenarios.

“The origins of the referral’s exhibits are highly questionable,” the filing states. It explains that while the FHFA does not maintain individual mortgage documents, Fannie Mae does. Many exhibits cited in the referral appeared sourced from one place: the blog of right-wing investigator Sam Antar, who allegedly supplied Director Pulte with the information used for the criminal referral. The filing continues, suggesting that Director Pulte either (1) relied solely on Antar’s dubious ‘evidence’ of AG James’s alleged fraud, (2) independently procured these documents from county clerk offices, or (3) illicitly accessed James’s loan files from Fannie Mae’s database.

Martin, mocked for wearing an “Inspector Gadget-inspired beige trenchcoat” on a summer day while “stalk[ing]” the AG’s Brooklyn home in August with friendly media “in tow,” gave away the game when he tried to pressure James to resign or else face prosecution, the filing continued.

“On August 12, 2025, while a pending investigation was underway that Mr. Martin was supposed to be leading, he sent AG James’s counsel a letter insisting that she ‘resign from office’ because, in his view, it ‘would best serve the ‘good of the state and nation” and ‘give the people of New York and America more peace than proceeding,’” court documents said. “Mr. Martin also stated that ‘[he] would take this as an act of good faith’ if she were to resign from office.”

Claiming that Martin ran roughshod over the Professional Rules of Responsibility, particularly Rule 3.8’s “special responsibilities of a prosecutor,” James’ motion alleged that Martin did not attempt to “be objective in seeking the facts and applying the correct law,” but instead “orchestrated a bizarre media stunt” complete with “strange antics” by showing up with a New York Post photographer in the AG’s neighborhood.

“The Post, with a photographer in tow, was there to capture the moment for Mr. Martin, adorned in an Inspector Gadget-inspired beige trenchcoat, in the middle of an August summer day. And in what could only reasonably be construed as an attempt to intimidate AG James, a few days later, Mr. Martin posted a photo of himself in front of her home on his official DOJ X account,” the filing said. “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.”

“There is no conceivable legitimate reason for Mr. Martin to stalk AG James’s home,” the filing continued, slamming Martin’s remark to James’ neighbors that he was “just happy to be on a block looking at houses … just looking at houses, interesting houses.”

Turning next to Halligan — “Whose Only Credential is Loyalty,” a subheading said — James claimed Pulte and Martin boosted their profiles in the Oval Office and online after the rookie prosecutor convinced a grand jury to indict in a case, whose “legal viability” reportedly didn’t satisfy former interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert or Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former defense attorney turned No. 2 official at the DOJ.

“Ms. Halligan alone went before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia—not in Norfolk, where grand jurors had heard evidence and witnesses for months—and left with a two-count indictment against AG James bearing the exact calculations Director Pulte had sent to Ms. Halligan just a few days prior. ‘Minutes after James was indicted, Pulte came into the Oval Office to boast that he and Halligan had pulled it off on their own,’ according to the Wall Street Journal,” the filing added. “That evening, Mr. Martin posted on X, ‘Promises made, Promises kept.’”

Repeating the argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed for the purpose of indicting Trump’s “political enemies,” James cited case law noting that the kind of “outrageous government conduct” that typically gets an indictment dismissed involves “pure brutality” that “shocks the conscience,” like “torture” or criminal activity. The AG acknowledged that the alleged circumstances here amount to an “issue of first impression” — that is, uncharted territory.

“Whether the government’s willingness to abuse its power and break its own rules and systems to obtain this indictment can sufficiently ‘shock the conscience’ to require dismissal of an indictment is an issue of first impression,” the filing concluded. “As the facts illustrate, Director Pulte, Mr. Martin, AG Bondi, and Ms. Halligan do not believe themselves bound by the Constitution, federal statutes, or fundamental ethical norms.”