This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Institute for Justice has announced it is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court to try to overturn a local fine in Alaska of $95,000 over a banned six-pack of beer.
"The Excessive Fines Clause of the constitution was built for cases like this," said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the IJ. "As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it's vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach."
The penalty is coming against pilot Ken Jouppi, who had ferried passengers, groceries and more around the state for years.
On April 3, 2012, "he was ferrying a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver," the IJ said. "But hidden in the passenger's luggage were three cases of beer—two Budweiser, one Bud Light—intended as a gift to her husband, the local postmaster."
The problem was that Beaver, in 2004, voted to ban alcohol entirely.
Before Ken could take off, state troopers searched the plane and discovered the beer. Ken was charged with a misdemeanor and convicted, the IJ said.
Then the state launched a full-blown war against him.
For years, prosecutors have also been trying to forfeit his airplane, a Cessna U206D, worth about $95,000, and just weeks ago, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that even had Ken known only about one six-pack of his passenger's beer, his argument that the fine was excessive failed.
"The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling puts it at odds with other courts around the country. Most notably, in Timbs v. Indiana—a case litigated by the Institute for Justice—the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 held the Excessive Fines Clause applies, not just to the federal government, but to states as well," the IJ said.
That fight was over the state-demanded forfeiture of a $40,000 Land Rover over a low-level drug offense, a scheme that was found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutionally excessive.
"This case isn't just about me or my airplane anymore," Ken said in a statement released by his lawyers. "I'm in my 80s now, and I've been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues to rage, with no resolution in sight.
With peace talks stalled, Russian drones recently targeted Ukrainian power infrastructure in both northern and southern regions, cutting electricity to approximately 60,000 people. In response, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy promised counterstrikes far beyond Russian's borders.
After three and a half years of war, questions linger about potential paths to peace, while concerns continue to mount over how much the American military should be involved. Last month, President Donald Trump said a peace deal with Russia would not include deploying U.S. troops to Ukraine's borders.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Darin Gaub, a former UH-60 Black Hawk pilot and battalion commander, agrees with the president, telling Fox News "'boots on the ground' in Ukraine is not necessary."
WorldNetDaily spoke to Gaub in-depth to flesh out what is really happening right now in the Russia-Ukraine war – and America's involvement.
"Trump's primary leverage – one that he's been using lately – is economic," Gaub explained. "The key thing the U.S. can do is tie ourselves to Ukraine economically and help them use their own resources to build themselves up economically and rebuild their own country." By doing that, he said, the Eastern European country could rebuild its military and take a formidable stance against Russia.
"The challenge in this conflict is that Russia saw this coming for years and built an alliance and economic system to survive the inevitable sanctions," Gaub explained to WND. "Not only did he invest heavily in golds and silvers, but he also tied himself closely to China and Iran." As the retired Army officer explained, "Through these nations, he's still able to sell energy and fuel his economy and war industry."
Additionally, Gaub considers it "unfortunate" that "Trump has placed around himself some bad actors providing equally bad advice."
Despite these setbacks, it still appears only the weight of American influence could compel Vladimir Putin to change his course of action. "This takes time and there has to be some security guarantees in order to make this possible," said Gaub. "A calculated discussion about the use of intelligence assets – space and airborne – could enforce a no-fly zone, for example." But, he added, "To think you need to have U.S. troops patrolling some sort of demilitarized zone between Russia and Ukraine is absolutely ridiculous and should never happen."
"Sadly," Gaub explained to WND, "European politicians talk one way to Trump, and act another way at home. They are content to let Ukraine fight on until the last standing Ukrainian." Why? "Too many European nations still benefit economically from the war," said Gaub, "and continue to make unrealistic demands that serve only to keep the war going, such as refusing to accept that Ukraine would have to make land concessions and that the Crimea be recognized as Russian."
"Ukraine is not in a good place militarily," Gaub pointed out, noting that "continuing to destroy Russian oil infrastructure will only serve to push Russia into a corner where they will fight harder."
"History is full of lessons that teach us the things we shouldn't do, but it seems many are attempting to recreate history in hopes this time it will work out differently," Gaub said. He concluded on an idealistic note: "Ultimately, I hope this war ends soon and we are able to see nations elevate each other through economic interchange and trade, rather than looking at each other as opponents."
Gaub is also the author of VERITAS VINCIT: A Soldier's Perspective on Truth, Faith, Family, and Freedom."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The police department in Dearborn, Michigan, which has a large population of Muslims, has gone for "unity" with a new Arabic-language patch for officers to wear.
It states, "Dearborn Heights Police," in Arabic.
A report at Fox News said the patch for now is "optional."
But U.S. Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., suggested there is reason for concern.
"They said their goal was to bring sharia law to America. You should've believed them. Pray for Michigan."
The department announced, ""The Dearborn Heights Police Department is proud to share a new optional patch that our officers may wear as part of their uniform."
It added, "This patch was created by Officer Emily Murdoch, who designed it to reflect and honor the diversity of our community – especially the many residents of Arabic descent who call Dearborn Heights home. By incorporating Arabic script alongside English, this patch represents unity, respect, and our shared commitment to service. We are proud of Officer Murdoch's creativity and dedication in helping our department better represent the people we serve."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For decades, many society influencers have touted the idea that the path to happiness for women is to be a career-minded professional with corporate titles and accolades, a platinum card and an absence of preschool, play-date and baby-sitting responsibilities.
That might work for some, but a new survey shows that more married women with children report being "very happy" than those unmarried without.
The survey by the Institute for Family Studies has found that 19% of married women with children report being very happy. That beats all other categories, including married without children at 11%, unmarried with children at 13% and unmarried without children at 10%.
The survey reported, "Married women are also more likely than unmarried women to say that life was enjoyable most or all of the time: 47% of married mothers and 43% of married childless women say life is enjoyable, compared to 40% of unmarried mothers and 34% of unmarried childless women."
The survey was done by Jean M. Twenge, Jenet Erickson, Wendy Wang, and Brad Wilcox, and Twenge wrote of her own decisions about marriage and children.
Then she explained, "These findings are not a one-off. Well-respected sources, such as the General Social Survey, show the same result; married mothers and fathers in that survey were more likely to report being 'very happy' than unmarried people and those without children. Another recent study found that married or partnered mothers are less likely to frequently feel depressed or anxious than people in the other three groups.
"Could it be not that marriage produces happiness, but that the causation goes the other way—that happier people are more likely to marry? One study controlled for premarital happiness levels and still found that marriage results in happier people and a less intense dip in life satisfaction at middle age.
"That's not to say the roles of wife and mother don't have their challenges. Roughly two-thirds of mothers in our survey, for example, said that they felt overwhelmed each day (though so did more than half of nonmothers). About six in 10 mothers said that they wished they had more time to themselves, compared with about four out of 10 childless women."
She noted, "Why, then, are mothers happier? The reasons speak to the profound experience of parenthood. Married mothers were the most likely to agree that their life 'has a clear sense of purpose' (28 percent), followed closely by unmarried mothers (25 percent). Only approximately 15 percent of women without children agreed. Mothers were also more likely than nonmothers to agree that their life 'feels meaningful' all or most of the time.
"I now have three children, and I am somewhat incredulous that in my premotherhood inquiries, no one mentioned the sense of purpose parenthood gives you. Yes, you're going to be tired and overwhelmed, but there's a deep knowledge that you're doing something important with your life: You're nurturing a human being. These feelings of purpose and meaning are sometimes difficult to put into words—perhaps why they aren't regularly discussed—but they are central to being a parent. I am fortunate to have a career I love and find meaningful; even so, the sense of purpose I have found through motherhood dwarfs every career milestone I have ever achieved."
She said, "The survey results also showed that marriage comes with several advantages. Married women are about half as likely to report being lonely as unmarried women. One factor may be that married women are more likely, they report, to regularly receive physical affection and touch. Touch is, in turn, strongly linked to happiness: 22 percent of women in the survey who experienced a high level of physical touch were very happy, compared with only 7 percent of those who received a low level of touch. Touch, especially from a spouse, is associated with reduced stress, increased trust, and greater feelings of safety.
"The false narrative that marriage and motherhood are a recipe for women's unhappiness is doing a lot of damage. In a nationally representative survey that I analyzed for my book Generations, the number of 18-year-old women who expected to have children plummeted by 11 percentage points from the late 2000s to the early 2020s. Negative messaging about marriage and motherhood is likely at the root of these Gen Z shifts, along with a pervasive pessimism about everything, egged on by social media, that borders on doomerism. Young people are also profoundly lonely and spend less time with their peers in person; the consequences for their adult relationships are unknown. Recent trends are even more concerning: AI girlfriends and boyfriends now offer the prospect of 'relationships' with an always-available entity that has no needs of its own. Meanwhile, the fertility rate in the U.S. is at an all-time low."
The survey reported, "Popular press articles often declare that single women without children are happier than married mothers, with headlines such as: 'Women are happier without children or a spouse, says happiness expert,' or '4 reasons why single women are the happiest people on Earth—by a psychologist,' and 'Why so many single women without children are happy.'"
It states, "Being married is the most important differentiator of happiness in America, with married people 30 percentage points happier than unmarried people. However, little of this research has focused specifically on women, and it is unclear how marriage and motherhood are linked to one another and to women's happiness."
The study was conducted by YouGov from March 1-12, 2025, with a representative sample of 3,000 women, ages 25-55, in the U.S.
The results also reported women, married with children, generally are less lonely. Only 11% reported being lonely most or all of the time in the last past 30s. For married without children, it was 10%, for unmarried with children 23% and for unmarried without children 20%.
Women married with children also reported more physical touch, which leads to being happier.
"Thus, one factor that explains why married women are happier than their unmarried peers is that they have more regular opportunities for kissing, hugging, and snuggling. For example, 58% of married women with children and 61% of married women without children report that they often get hugs or kisses, while only 36% of unmarried mothers and 18% of unmarried women without children report the same," the survey said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Letitia James, the Democrat attorney general in the state of New York, is demanding an appeals court restore a $500 million penalty against President Donald Trump that a New York judge created.
It was Arthur Engoron who heard the case in which James alleged Trump and his companies committed fraud.
James, who herself is under investigation now on fraud charges of her own related to alleged lies she submitted on federal mortgage documents, claimed that the companies' actions left behind damages even though testimony during the trial, which went down without a jury, proved those who made loans to Trump were happy with them, they were all paid off, they made money off Trump and would like to do business with him again.
Engoron and James worked together to create the $500 million penalty, and then tried to arrange requirements so that Trump could not appeal. He did, and the appeals court bluntly said the fine violated the U.S. Constitution.
Now, a report in the Epoch Times reveals that James wants that constitutional violation restored.
The report explains she filed a notice of appeal to the New York Supreme Court, confirming she is appealing.
"The brief notice does not spell out arguments from James as to why the appeal should be allowed," the report explained.
It was the New York Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, a branch of the New York Supreme Court, that tossed the penalty in a fractured ruling but left the civil judgment against Trump.
Engoron ruled against Trump in February 2024 and issuing a judgment of more than $460 million, with interest accruing.
Even the appellate judges who thought James' claims of fraud were justified opposed her penalty.
"Justice David Friedman criticized James, saying she was focused on 'political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,'" the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Members of the federal judiciary, in a number of instances since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, have adopted political positions in their rulings.
Judges at the federal court system's entry level, district courts, have claimed the authority to order the nation's international affairs, financial affairs, DEI ideologies, expenditures, and more, many of which fall directly inside the president's responsibilities under the Constitution.
And now they are complaining the Supreme Court "doesn't have our backs."
Anonymously, of course, as one judge, James Boasberg, in Washington, who publicly complained about Trump at a judicial conference now is the subject of an ethics complaint.
It seems judges are supposed to be neutral about issues and individuals in cases before their court, and Boasberg tried to "undermine" the president, who is involved in several cases Boasberg is hearing.
A report at Fox News explained, "A group of anonymous federal judges is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings and siding with President Donald Trump's administration with little to no explanation."
The report cited NBC interviews with "12 federal judges, appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents including Trump."
They complained to NBC about "a trend of lower court decisions being overturned by emergency rulings from the high court."
Trump administration officials also have been publicly critical of the decisions made by judges who have gone out of their lane, the report said.
Ten of the judges told the Supreme Court the justices should provide more explanation when the district court decisions are reversed.
"They don't have our backs," said one anonymous complainer.
One judge also reported getting death threats for his rulings in opposition to the president's agenda.
And the administration has been critical of those lower court decisions, describing one fight as the result of a "judicial coup."
NBC said one judge who described the Supreme Court's actions as inexcusable claimed, "Somebody is going to die" because of administration criticism.
"It's almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a 'judicial coup,'" one judge told NBC.
There was one dissenter, a judge appointed by Barack Obama, who admitted multiple judges have been "out of line" with their political agendas in opposition to the president.
"The whole 'Trump derangement syndrome' is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane," that judge said.
One example of the judicial activism at the entry-court level is Boasberg himself.
WND reported recently when Boasberg, who has been virulently anti-Trump for years, ever since he was involved in the scheme to spy on the Trump campaign as part of the Russiagate conspiracy theory from 2016, heard a case of a woman jailed for her deranged social media posts about wanting to kill Trump.
Boasberg decided she shouldn't be in jail, so he ordered her released, with electronic monitoring and a visit to a psychiatrist.
Lately, Boasberg has run an agenda opposing Trump's efforts to secure America's borders and remove illegal alien criminals from U.S. shores, wildly insisting that two jets loaded with those individuals that already were on deportation flights in international airspace to turn around and return the criminals to America, without acknowledging whether the jets even had enough fuel to do that.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "Now this woman has been quietly released by Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg. That would be the same Judge Boasberg who has repeatedly interfered in efforts to deport illegal alien criminals."
Boasberg also has been criticized for publicly suggesting, during a judicial conference, that Trump would not follow his orders and that would create a constitutional crisis.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained she ordered a complaint filed over the "misconduct" by Boasberg, for "making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration."
"These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary," she confirmed.
A DOJ official confirmed, "Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief. Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was presiding. Judge Boasberg violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including the requirement that he 'promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'"
WorldNetDaily has reported it was the Federalist that obtained access to comments Boasberg made at a recent judicial conference undermining the president.
He disparaged the president, even though he's required to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche later described Boasberg as a "threat to the rule of law" for using his own agendas in his court rulings to try to control the decisions of the Executive Branch.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Planned Parenthood, the biggest player in America's lucrative abortion industry, soon will be exiting the state of Louisiana.
Entirely.
It is Liberty Counsel which is reporting that Planned Parenthood will cease all operations in the state effective Sept. 30 by closing its remaining business outlets in Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
"The closures follow restrictions in Medicaid funding for abortion facilities in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' passed by Congress last July, which has prompted Planned Parenthood to shutter dozens of other facilities nationwide," the report said.
There also has been sustained legal and financial pressures from the executive and legislative branches in the state, which have adopted some pro-life priorities.
"In more than 40 years of operation in the state, Planned Parenthood had never been licensed to perform abortions there. Even though Louisiana legislators banned abortion in nearly all cases with a trigger law that took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Planned Parenthood still helped provide referrals and travel funding for women to obtain abortions across state lines," Liberty Counsel reported.
The news brought praise from Gov. Jeff Landry, who said abortion "should never be considered health care," and Attorney General Liz Murrill, who said, "Planned Parenthood built its business around promoting death. Louisiana chooses life. We will always protect women and babies."
The national organization had said several months ago that because of the defunding provisions in Medicaid, it could close as many as 200 of its 600 business operations nationwide.
In Louisiana, lawmakers further adopted House Bill 575, which allows residents to sue out-of-state health care professionals who mail abortion drugs into the state.
And House Bill 425 now expands protections further by making it illegal to compel a pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will.
"Any organization like Planned Parenthood that kills babies and harms women should not have a place in any state. State officials and legislators should keep up the pressure to defund abortion providers and protect women and children," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Air Force Maj. Brennan Schilperoort, a grounded C-130 pilot who faced financial penalties and discrimination for several years over his claim to a religious exemption from taking mandated flu shots, has finally achieved a measure of justice in his lengthy struggle against military leadership, as revealed in an exclusive report by this writer.
According to a Sept. 2 press release by Younts Law, which represents Schilperoort, "On August 13, 2025 – twenty months after Major Schilperoort's initial Inspector General (IG)complaint, its denial, and subsequent appeals – the Air Force Inspector General overruled prior findings by subordinate Inspectors General. The IG substantiated Major Schilperoort's complaint that his commander unlawfully issued a Letter of Reprimand and refused to process his December 2023 flu shot religious accommodation request."
As Schilperoort's legal counsel R. Davis Younts posted on X, the determination is a "huge victory for religious freedom in the military."
WorldNetDaily spoke to Maj. Schilperoort, who emphasized up-front that his views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or Department of the Air Force.
Schilperoort and his wife were "beyond surprised," he said, at receiving the news and are grateful to the IG and Air Force Review Boards Agency director.
In fact, he told WND, it is his prayer that God uses this determination to "set a precedent," one that has "huge implications for all the other service members the past many decades who were wronged by commands and their legal advisers who blocked their due-process and constitutional rights."
Likewise, speaking to WND, his attorney R. Davis Younts held nothing back in his assessment of the case: "This vindication exposes a blatant case of religious discrimination driven by malicious compliance from low-level bureaucratic leaders who weaponized policies to target faith, compounded by flawed advice from Air Force JAGs that enabled these abuses."
As Younts explained, "It's a win for my client, but it also shines a light on the struggles of thousands of other service members who've been targeted for their beliefs, demanding urgent reforms – reforms that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Air Force Under Secretary Matt Lohmeier are championing to restore integrity and protect religious freedoms across the ranks."
"The Air Force's highest authorities finally admitted the Letter of Reprimand was baseless and that the religious accommodation request was mishandled – violations rooted in the malicious compliance of squadron-level bureaucrats and misguided JAG counsel that ignored clear regulations," Younts pointed out.
"It took 20 months, multiple appeals and investigative journalism to force this review, highlighting how the system initially failed at every level due to low-level leaders' malicious adherence to rules that punished sincere beliefs and JAGs' poor guidance that prolonged the injustice," said Younts. "As an attorney fighting these battles, I see this as a broader indictment of institutional bias, with implications for the many service members still enduring reprisals for standing by their faith."
"Facing potential discharge after exemplary service," Younts argued, "Ma. Schilperoort's ordeal is emblematic of a larger crisis in military religious freedom, fueled by bureaucratic malicious compliance at the command level and bad JAG advice that turned accommodations into reprisals."
Legally, he explained, the substantiations confirm unlawful actions that have harmed his client and "echo the experiences of countless others." For this reason, "The secretary must act to restore justice, and I praise Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Under Secretary Matt Lohmeier for leading the charge against such discrimination throughout the department."
"We need accountability now," added Younts, while also commending Hegseth and Lohmeier for their "bold efforts to enforce real protections." From a legal perspective, he said, Schilperoort's case "reveals deep flaws in how commands process exemptions, affecting not just Major Schilperoort but a multitude of troops facing similar persecution amid eroding religious rights in the military." However, he reemphasized that he is thankful for leaders like Hegseth and Lohmeier who are "stepping up to dismantle these systemic barriers."
Maj. Brennan Schilperoort "strongly urges the current administration that these sorts of cases need to be examined at the level of the Joint Chiefs of the service branches and by their secretaries, thorough investigations directed, and appropriate punitive accountability applied fairly and based on facts across the board, regardless of rank or what position someone holds or has held."
For the C-130 military transport pilot, "It's past [the] time that all the weight of accountability falls downhill, while those at the top who are most responsible get to walk away scot-free." Rather, insists Schilperoort, "This nation is demanding accountability and fair and equal treatment of the law for all, where not a one is 'more equal' than others."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Six candidates for political office in Germany, all members of a relatively conservative party, the AfD, have dropped dead within a two-week time frame, just as elections are about to be held.
It is the New York Post that has reported the candidates all were part of Alternative for Deutschland, which is considered more right-wing than other parties in the country.
The BBC said officials were claiming no foul play was involved in the deaths of four candidates and two reserves: Ralph Lange, 66, Wolfgang Klinger, 71, Stefan Berendes, 59, and Wolfgang Seitz, 59, and the two reserves.
They all were to appear on ballots in North Rhine-Westphalia in a matter of just days, on September 14.
Authorities have not commented on the causes for the deaths, except to say two appeared to be from natural causes.
The BBC noted an economist pointed out the number of candidate deaths in such a timespan was "statistically impossible."
According to a report by the Daily Caller, officials were reporting that candidates from other parties, Social Democrats and Greens, also died during that same time space.
The AfD party had made huge gains during the 2022 elections, surging from 5.4% to 16.8% in the polls, but it still remained less than an election superpower.
The unexpected deaths have required multiple reprints of election ballots and have led to the cancellation of some mail-in ballots, the BBC noted.
It was only three months ago that Germany's spy agency temporarily classified the AfD as an "extremist" group, before backtracking.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve board governor ordered fired by President Donald Trump, has been put under formal investigation by the Department of Justice over allegations she committed fraud on mortgage papers.
She's one among several prominent Democrats facing the same or similar counts: For claiming that multiple homes all are "primary" residences, which qualify for better mortgage interest rates.
The others so far identified to have allegedly committed such offenses are New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose "fraud" case against Trump's companies has mostly died, and anti-Trump Russiagate hoaxer Adam Schiff, now a senator from California.
According to the Daily Mail, Attorney General Pam Bondi's Justice Department issued subpoenas on Thursday regarding information about Cook and her mortgage paperwork.
It's not the only legal fight she's in, as instead of departing her position when Trump fired her for "cause," she sued to keep her job.
The focus is on Cook's properties in Michigan and Georgia.
Last month, Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance director, alleged Cook engaged in mortgage fraud, sending a referral to the DOJ.
Among the complications is that Trump has for months been trying to have the Federal Reserve lower interest rates for American consumers, but has been handed only resistance from chairman Jerome Powell and others on the board.
The irony is that Cook is accused of cheating to lower her own interest rates while voting to keep interest rates for consumers high.
Trump already has replaced one board member, and if Cook is removed, he would be able to gain influence through another appointee.
"Once we have a majority, housing is going to swing, and it's going to be great," Trump has explained. "People are paying too high an interest rate. That's the only problem with us. We have to get the rates down a little bit."
In fact, interest rates exploded to more than 9% under Joe Biden. Mortgage rates have since receded, but still remain, in Trump's opinion, far too high.
A report at the Gateway Pundit noted, "Lisa Cook allegedly committed occupancy fraud (and perhaps tax fraud) on all three of her properties. According to Federal Housing Director Bill Pulte's first criminal referral to the DOJ, Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud by lying on her mortgage application and falsifying bank statements when she designated her out-of-state Atlanta condo as her 'primary residence' — just two weeks after taking a loan on her Ann Arbor, Michigan home, which she also claimed as her 'primary residence.'"
A followup referral from Pulte concerns Cook's third home, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.