Convicted Felon Incompetently Seeks Shortened Sentence in Pro Se Pleading
Post 4856
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXj9W6AD, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gaMSX9eV and at https://lnkd.in/g2wqG6DN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Rameeza S. Chowdhury (“Chowdhury”) appealed as her own attorney from the order dismissing her petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) and must serve the full sentence.
Rameeza S. Chowdhury (“Chowdhury”) appealed as her own attorney from the order dismissing her petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) and must serve the full sentence.
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Rameeza S. Chowdhury, No. 1491 MDA 2023, No. J-S19027-24, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (August 8, 2024) Chowdhury’s attempt to get out of jail was found to have been made without an appropriate basis and incompetently.
FACTS
Berks Psychiatry (“BP”), a medical office headed by Doctor Mohammed Khan resulted in the arrest and conviction of Ms. Chowdhury. Before her arrest the Commonwealth received information that patients could walk into BP and receive prescriptions for certain controlled substances with little if any medical examination. A search warrant was executed on October 16, 2012, resulting in the seizure of numerous records and approximately seven million dollars in cash. Dr. Khan unlawfully prescribed approximately 145,000 pills from January 1, 2012, through October 16, 2012.
Chowdhury, BP’s office manager, was charged as an accomplice to Dr. Khan with respect to prescribing three controlled substances (Xanax, Adderall, and Ritalin). In addition, the Commonwealth filed several charges particular to Chowdhury as a principal, which encompassed fraudulent billing, racketeering, perjury, and hindering prosecution. Medicare would be billed for separate visits on different dates, i.e., one day with the therapist and one day with Dr. Khan, when, in reality, the patients saw both persons on the same day. Several BP witnesses testified that Chowdhury ordered the alterations.
THE SENTENCE
After a non-jury trial on March 8, 2017, the trial court convicted Chowdhury of three counts of unlawful administration of a controlled substance by a practitioner, two counts of corrupt organizations, and one count each of conspiracy, perjury, insurance fraud, and hindering prosecution. The trial court sentenced Chowdhury to an aggregate term of six to eighteen years of imprisonment to be followed by two years of probation. Chowdhury did not appeal.
On June 6, 2019, Chowdhury timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, her first.
Chowdhury presented the following two questions for consideration:
1 Whether Chowdhury is guilty by association for drug crimes when she was employed by a medical doctor as an office manager.
2 Whether the Commonwealth met its burden of proof in overcoming the protections of statutes which confer additional immunity from guilt by association for those good faith office manager employees of medical professionals who were convicted of drug crimes incidental to government overreach, subject to counsel review?
ARGUMENT
Chowdhury argued that she is “not guilty as a matter of law” because as officer manager, she performed administrative duties and “had nothing to do with drug crimes.” Couched within the first issue, Chowdhury also argued that the Commonwealth did not prove she constructively possessed drugs because “office managers do not dispense drugs.”
Chowdhury concluded, without expounding, that counsel missed this law and its immunizing effect, ineffectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The appellate court concluded that no relief was due on any of Chowdhury’s claims.
First, Chowdhury failed to raise these issues in her PCRA petition. Accordingly, all of Chowdhury’s issues were waived on this basis.
A petitioner cannot raise issues in a PCRA petition that have been previously litigated or waived. Chowdhury’s claims all center around her argument that she cannot be held criminally liable because she was merely an office manager who worked under the direction of Dr. Khan, which was previously litigated on direct appeal. Chowdhury’s claims are, therefore, ineligible for PCRA relief.
To establish an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, a petitioner must prove: (1) The underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) appellant suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error such that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent such error.
Because Chowdhury did not develop this issue, let alone prove the inadequacy, the appellate court concluded it was also waived.
ZALMA OPINION
It is axiomatic that the person who represents herself in court has a fool for a client and is a foolish litigator to take on such a difficult task. Chowdhury failed totally, made an enemy of a court appointed lawyer who withdrew and then totally failed in her attempts to represent herself to the appellate court, proving the axiom correct. The crime she, and her employer, Dr. Khan committed was evil rather than medicinal and she will now serve the six to eighteen years in prison.
(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/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
