Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore State Attorney, indicted for perjury

[Anonymous]

Not just tax debt it sounds like they were living paycheck to paycheck and had literally no savings. She even skimmed the retirement account withdrawals; only about 90% of the withdrawals went to home downpayments. What in the world were they spending all their money on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She made $250k and great benefits plus likely a free car — and presumably her husband made $100k (?) and free car at city council? How in the world can you be in tax delinquency on those salaries and fringe benefits in freakin’ Baltimore? Genuine 1-percenters. Drug or gambling addiction? Doesn’t make any sense.

They probably had pre-existing debts and were paying for family members' expenses/debts. Plus, their incomes opened up an opportunity to borrow at prime rates that probably never existed for them before. Maybe throw some medical debt in there too.

In short, lack of basic financial knowledge and spending beyond their means.

[Anonymous]

Took long enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like her but she is looking at 30 years? That is too long. I think she taxing guidelines are crazy because you either have zero time or 30 years?

Agree - 30 years is an insane sentence. Elizabeth Holmes is facing less time!

[Anonymous]

They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like her but she is looking at 30 years? That is too long. I think she taxing guidelines are crazy because you either have zero time or 30 years?

Agree - 30 years is an insane sentence. Elizabeth Holmes is facing less time!

That’s how it works and she knows that. Throw the book at you and then settle for something less. So 30 years and plea down to 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

No... they charged her for lying on official documents for these actions when the documents clearly stated, "under penalty of perjury."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

I don't think anyone could survive this level of scrutiny. One of the charges is that the mortgage agreement she signed had a provision in it that she would use it as a residence and wouldn't rent it out, but she in fact rented it out. As anyone who has signed a mortgage knows, these agreements are dozens of pages long with dense text. How many people actually read all of this, know what it says, and then comply with every clause in there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

I don't think anyone could survive this level of scrutiny. One of the charges is that the mortgage agreement she signed had a provision in it that she would use it as a residence and wouldn't rent it out, but she in fact rented it out. As anyone who has signed a mortgage knows, these agreements are dozens of pages long with dense text. How many people actually read all of this, know what it says, and then comply with every clause in there?

Lots of UMC people invested in real estate buy a home, say its a primary residence, get the low 30 year rate, then rent it out within the first year. I mean, this is a pretty common practice, despite being illegal. I know LOTS of people who have done this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

I don't think anyone could survive this level of scrutiny. One of the charges is that the mortgage agreement she signed had a provision in it that she would use it as a residence and wouldn't rent it out, but she in fact rented it out. As anyone who has signed a mortgage knows, these agreements are dozens of pages long with dense text. How many people actually read all of this, know what it says, and then comply with every clause in there?

This is boilerplate language in any primary mortgage agreement. The language basically states that you intend to make the home your primary residence and are not buying it as an investment property for rental purposes from the outset. If you want to buy it for investment purposes, you typically need 30% downpayment and pay a higher interest rate.

She clearly violated that by turning around and signing a management agreement with a vacation home company. But pretty much every professional owner on AirBnB/VRBO with more than one property is committing the same crime. Everyone is doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

I don't think anyone could survive this level of scrutiny. One of the charges is that the mortgage agreement she signed had a provision in it that she would use it as a residence and wouldn't rent it out, but she in fact rented it out. As anyone who has signed a mortgage knows, these agreements are dozens of pages long with dense text. How many people actually read all of this, know what it says, and then comply with every clause in there?

Lots of UMC people invested in real estate buy a home, say its a primary residence, get the low 30 year rate, then rent it out within the first year. I mean, this is a pretty common practice, despite being illegal. I know LOTS of people who have done this.

I don't know how common it is as I've never heard people doing this.

But even so, if you are an elected official, you must know the standards are much stricter for you and there is less forgiveness. Sooner or later someone will spot any discrepancy.

And especially so if you court controversy and are known for being abrasive and divisive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

I don't think anyone could survive this level of scrutiny. One of the charges is that the mortgage agreement she signed had a provision in it that she would use it as a residence and wouldn't rent it out, but she in fact rented it out. As anyone who has signed a mortgage knows, these agreements are dozens of pages long with dense text. How many people actually read all of this, know what it says, and then comply with every clause in there?

Lots of UMC people invested in real estate buy a home, say its a primary residence, get the low 30 year rate, then rent it out within the first year. I mean, this is a pretty common practice, despite being illegal. I know LOTS of people who have done this.

I don't know how common it is as I've never heard people doing this.

But even so, if you are an elected official, you must know the standards are much stricter for you and there is less forgiveness. Sooner or later someone will spot any discrepancy.

And especially so if you court controversy and are known for being abrasive and divisive.

Well it seems the standards are only stricter for some elected officials. We know, for example, that Donald Trump's loan applications have loads of false statements in them. As do many of his business's tax returns. But he's never been indicted for any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

I don't think anyone could survive this level of scrutiny. One of the charges is that the mortgage agreement she signed had a provision in it that she would use it as a residence and wouldn't rent it out, but she in fact rented it out. As anyone who has signed a mortgage knows, these agreements are dozens of pages long with dense text. How many people actually read all of this, know what it says, and then comply with every clause in there?

Lots of UMC people invested in real estate buy a home, say its a primary residence, get the low 30 year rate, then rent it out within the first year. I mean, this is a pretty common practice, despite being illegal. I know LOTS of people who have done this.

I don't know how common it is as I've never heard people doing this.

But even so, if you are an elected official, you must know the standards are much stricter for you and there is less forgiveness. Sooner or later someone will spot any discrepancy.

And especially so if you court controversy and are known for being abrasive and divisive.

Well it seems the standards are only stricter for some elected officials. We know, for example, that Donald Trump's loan applications have loads of false statements in them. As do many of his business's tax returns. But he's never been indicted for any of that.

That's neither here nor there. What matters is Marilyn Mosby. I'm not sure why some people are rushing to her defense. She's been a terrible DA. She bought these properties in Florida (two!) and then immediately rented them out. I bought a house last year too and I was very well aware of the terms and conditions of my mortgage and that it was for a primary residence. If I could figure it out, surely she, an actual lawyer, would also know better....

She got arrogant. Just like Catherine Pugh before her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They indicted her for taking hardship withdrawals from her own retirement account and for renting out a house that has a secondary home mortgage on it? Geez, even if that technically qualifies as a crime, that seems like weak tea.

Feds go harder after African-American elected officials (it's true). I can guarantee that others more prominent and powerful than her have done the same exact thing, but there's no probable cause to trigger a review of their finances. Feds definitely went on a fishing expedition for Mosby's finances. What triggered the probable cause?

I don't think anyone could survive this level of scrutiny. One of the charges is that the mortgage agreement she signed had a provision in it that she would use it as a residence and wouldn't rent it out, but she in fact rented it out. As anyone who has signed a mortgage knows, these agreements are dozens of pages long with dense text. How many people actually read all of this, know what it says, and then comply with every clause in there?

She is a DA. Who else would possibly be more knowledgeable about contract law than her?