Fraudster Has no Basis to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Post 5026
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/ginAHFny, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gGMGgKiD and at https://lnkd.in/gBQQAV_3, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In United States Of America v. Glenn Griffin, No. 22 CR 390-1 (VB), United States District Court, S.D. New York (March 13, 2025) Glenn Griffin sought to withdraw the guilty plea he entered on August 26, 2024. During a change of plea hearing before Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik, Griffin pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud that he wishes to change when he found out the potential sentence.
GRIFFIN’S ARGUMENTS TO WITHDRAW PLEA
Glenn Griffin made two key arguments in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea:
1. Improper Pressure from Counsel: Griffin argued that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because his prior counsel, Stephen J. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., improperly pressured him to plead guilty.
2. Intervening Developments: Griffin maintained that intervening developments since the plea hearing revealed the government’s case to be substantially weaker than he was initially led to believe by McCarthy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Griffin was arrested on July 21, 2022, on an indictment that included charges of bribery and wire fraud, among others. He was accused of conspiring with Robert Dyckman, an employee of the Town of Cortlandt, New York, to allow unauthorized dumping at a town facility in exchange for bribes. Additionally, Griffin was involved in a bid-rigging scheme to defraud municipalities.
THE PLEA COLLOQUY
The colloquy turned when the magistrate judge asked Griffin to say in his own words “what you did to commit these crimes.” Griffin responded by partially admitting to some of the charged conduct; he acknowledged that he “gave Bobby Dyckman a couple hundred bucks a few times around the holidays as . . . [a] gratuity,” and said that, “as far as the bids . . . I did ask people over time to help me just because I was-I had relationships with people, and I did ask other people to put in some bids,” but asserted that he “didn’t do it with all the ones that they said.”
When Judge Reznik asked if Griffin had agreed to an illegal dumping scheme, he responded, “No.” But later he responded: “In-for just to make this easier on everybody, yes, Your Honor. But it was . . . if it was a few hundred dollars a couple of times, and I had permission for years and years and years.”
Griffin’s sworn testimony during the plea colloquy carried a strong presumption of accuracy and that his later contradictory statements were found by the court to not be sufficient grounds to withdraw the plea. The court also found that Griffin’s counsel had provided an honest assessment of the case and that Griffin had ample opportunity to discuss the plea agreement with his counsel.
ANALYSIS
The voluntariness of Griffin’s guilty plea was the dispositive issue presented to the District Court.
The Court concluded that Griffin voluntarily pleaded guilty. When a Court rejects a defendant’s claim of involuntariness that finding alone is sufficient to reject the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Griffin testified that, on August 26, Mr. McCarthy encouraged him to plead guilty but made clear that the choice was Griffin’s alone. Not only does Griffin’s testimony undermine his claim that Mr. McCarthy coerced him to plead guilty, but it reinforces the presumption of verity attached to the statements he made during the plea colloquy.
Griffin failed to meet his burden and Griffin’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied. Griffin’s sentencing will proceed on April 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
ZALMA OPINION
Plea bargains exist to save the time of the prosecution and the court when the defendant agrees that the facts against him are sufficient to find him guilty by a jury and a lesser sentence that he would have received if found guilty by a jury. Second thoughts about his guilt is insufficient to allow a person who voluntarily pleaded guilty to withdraw his plea. He will be sentenced in April and will spend time in the gray bar hotel.
(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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
