Reference no: EM133799012

Question

First of all, there were only two properties involved in the three counts, so why he is rambling about eight properties is utterly baffling. Secondly, the charges were wire fraud, not mortgage fraud. There is a significant difference between those two charges, and the use of interstate communication to obtain or attempt to obtain money or property by fraud is what grants the federal court jurisdiction according to the statute. Clearly, since these properties closed and Nana was physically present at the closings in New York, it was not merely an attempt, which means I would have had to actually obtain either property or money at the alleged victim's expense. To this day, I am not even sure who the "victim" is, other than my Nana being a victim of predatory lending because the interest rates were outrageously high, and we were completely unaware. All I do know is that the judge never had federal jurisdiction because I never used interstate communication to obtain or attempt to obtain money or property as required both by the statute and outlined in each of the three counts.