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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
