8 Years in Prison for Forgery to Establish Non-Existent Counseling
Jail House Lawyer Fails
Post 5024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gTMmp5cX, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gNA3hYEb and at https://lnkd.in/gNa-Vz5x, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In The People Of The State Of Illinois v. Robert A. Moylan, 2025 IL App (3d) 230248-U, No. 3-23-0248, Court of Appeals of Illinois (March 11, 2025) Robert A. Moylan was found guilty of seven counts of forgery for signing and delivering false documents stating that his clients had successfully completed court-ordered counseling services.
Moylan was sentenced to an aggregate term of eight years’ imprisonment. He appealed, claiming several errors by the court, including the denial of his motions to suppress eavesdrop recordings and evidence seized from his offices, and the denial of his request for a public defender at sentencing.
Acting as his own attorney Defendant appealed, claiming the court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress eavesdrop recordings of counseling sessions, (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his offices, (3) allowing a client to testify about statements he made during counseling sessions, (4) denying his request for the public defender at sentencing, (5) ordering him to serve an aggregate term of eight years in prison, and (6) entering convictions on six counts of forgery in violation of the one-act, one-crime rule.
BACKGROUND
In August 2017, defendant was indicted on seven counts of forgery. The indictments alleged that in July 2016 and February 2017, defendant created and delivered letters which falsely stated that David Molenkamp and Christopher Merkes completed court-ordered counseling for driving under the influence (DUI), made false insurance claims to obtain payment for the services, and knowingly devised a scheme to defraud BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois (BCBS).
Trial Proceedings
Following the State’s case-in-chief, defendant rested. The jury found defendant guilty of forgery on all seven counts and not guilty of insurance fraud, aggravated insurance fraud, and wire fraud.
ANALYSIS
Trial Judge Marchese concluded that the application was legally sufficient. The application, as found in the record on appeal, supports that finding. Investigator York’s 18-page submission provided a detailed description of her conversations with Molenkamp’s ex-girlfriend, as well as her conversations with Molenkamp, and included information regarding her conversations with defendant.
Fourth Amendment Violations
A valid search warrant must state with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Generally, when property of a specified nature is to be seized rather than particular property,then a description of its characteristics is sufficient.
On the merits, the warrants satisfied the particularity requirement. Whether the necessary probable cause existed is governed by common sense considerations that are factual and practical, not by technical nuances. Based on York’s application describing the circumstances of her investigation and the conversations she had with Pascale, Molenkamp, and defendant, the issuing judge had a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that probable cause existed to search defendant’s offices.
Defendant’s Right to Counsel of Choice
Defendant next challenges the denial of his posttrial motion and his sentence based on the violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel of choice.
Excessive Sentence
In determining an appropriate sentence, the circuit court must consider all relevant factors in mitigation and aggravation and balance the retributive and rehabilitative purposes of the punishment. Defendant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, a sentence within the statutory range for forgery, a Class 3 felony.
The court found no error in the denial of the motions to suppress and concluding that the evidence obtained was legally sufficient. The court also found that the admission of witness testimony regarding statements Moylan made during counseling sessions was not plain error. Additionally, the court ruled that Moylan’s forgery convictions did not violate the one-act, one-crime rule, and that his eight-year aggregate sentence was not excessive or improper.
Held: (1) The circuit court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress eavesdrop recordings of counseling sessions; (2) the circuit court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his offices; (3) admission of witness’s testimony regarding comments defendant made during counseling session was not plain error; (4) the circuit court properly denied defendant’s posttrial choice-of-counsel request; and (5) defendant’s forgery convictions did not violate the one-act, one-crime rule.
The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County was affirmed and the eight-year aggregate sentence was not excessive or improper.
ZALMA OPINION
People who commit fraudulent acts, even after they are caught, tried and convicted, have the type of chutzpah that would exceed the gall of a man who murdered his parents and after conviction asked for mercy because he’s an orphan. To bring these motions and require the Court of Appeals to write an opinion in detail on all of his weak arguments is contumacious. Yet, it is important because it make clear in Illinois that these arguments should never be brought again and Moylan should have been happy that he was found not guilty of the insurance fraud counts.
(c) 2025 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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
