US Senator Charged with Insurance Fraud & Other Crimes Fights Search
Warrants
Barry Zalma
Mar 8, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/d-5MjhcM, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/dTTzAjRn and at https://lnkd.in/dpwuY7zf and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4751
In United States Of America v. Robert Menendez, Nadine Menendez, Wael Hana, Jose Uribe, and Fred Daibes, No. S2 23-CR-490 (SHS), the United States District Court, S.D. New York (March 4, 2024) dealt with attempts to defeat the search warrants that found evidence that Senator Menendez, (D. New Jersey) was involved in selling favors for the benefit of a foreign country.
Defendant Robert Menendez (“Menendez”) moved for (1) a Franks hearing to assess allegedly material misstatements and omissions in certain of the government’s search warrant applications and (2) an order suppressing evidence from additional warrants seeking electronically stored information on the grounds that they are “general unconstitutional warrants.”
BACKGROUND
The years-long investigation that led to the indictment in this action involved the issuance of numerous search warrants for both physical locations and electronic devices or accounts. Menendez challenges a subset of the warrants.
Menendez challenges the three warrants on the grounds that the warrants were “riddled with material misrepresentation and omissions that deceived the authorizing magistrate judge.”
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Thus, a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity.
With respect to intentionality, the reviewing court must be presented with credible and probative evidence that a misstatement or omission in a warrant application was designed to mislead or was made in reckless disregard of whether it would mislead.
The evidence supported probable cause as to Menendez’s involvement. Within two hours of the call from Menendez’s office to the official, Hana texted Nadine asking for her address. Only a few days later, Nadine also texted Hana, “I’m so excited to get a car next week. !!” In addition, the affidavit cites a message from Nadine to Hana indicating that Nadine had forwarded the materials related to Egypt to Menendez. In summary, the warrant application amply satisfied probable cause and adding any omitted information contained in the CS transcript would not alter that determination.
THE JUNE MENENDEZ HOME WARRANT
Contrary to Menendez’s assertion, the Second Affidavit includes additional evidence supporting probable cause, including messages from Uribe asking Hana for help disrupting a New Jersey investigation. Therefore, as with the January 2022 Menendez ESI Warrant, the Court denied Menendez’s request.
The court concluded that the omissions are not material: the inclusion of this additional information would not change the probable cause determination. The New Jersey Defendant, the jeweler, and the testing company owner are all alleged beneficiaries of the bribery scheme. The fact that beneficiaries of an alleged scheme denied their involvement or knowledge after the fact when questioned by a government agent is not sufficient to overcome the significant contemporaneous evidence supporting probable cause that is otherwise present in the Third affidavit.
Menendez has not provided any evidence-and there is no basis to infer-that the omissions were intentionally or recklessly misleading. Indeed, the government only learned the relevant information on the same day that the warrant was sought, which casts significant doubt on the claim that its omission was designed to mislead.
Accordingly, each of the omissions does not meet the materiality threshold. Moreover, the combined, cumulative effect of the omissions raised by Hana – including those that were also raised by Menendez – does not rise to the level of the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing.
THE WARRANTS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERBROAD
The court found that the Menendez Warrants satisfied the requirements of particularity. Menendez also took issue with the breadth of iCloud account collections, but it is well settled that the government may seize the entire contents of electronic accounts in order to search for relevant evidence.
In sum, the Menendez Warrants are not violative of the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Menendez’s Motion to Suppress Search Warrant Returns was denied. Additionally, the challenged Menendez Warrants do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.
ZALMA OPINION
When a United States Senator engages in acts to protect a person committing insurance fraud and providing assistance to the Country of Egypt was subject to search warrants that allowed the search of his home and seizure of evidence of his fraud and inappropriate conduct to favor, for a fee, the concerns of a foreign country. He attempted to have the search warrants eliminated and the seizure of evidence during the searches conducted and that attempt clearly failed. This case establishes, among other things, that insurance fraud is committed by every race, religion, gender, national origin, wealth, or service in public office is rampant and in this one, rare case, has resulted in an arrest.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g, Go to X @bzalma; https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
