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
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, ...
