Selling Office of US Senator is an Unforgivable Crime
Post 5161
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvGJ2nBW and at https://lnkd.in/gxw-mmBB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Claim of Innocence Unbelievable
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Nadine Menendez, along with then-Senator Robert Menendez, Wael Hana, Jose Uribe, and Fred Daibes, was indicted for participating in a bribery scheme. The charges included conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services wire fraud, extortion under color of official right, and obstruction of justice. Both were found guilty at trial. Mrs. Menendez moved to overturn the jury verdict.
In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NADINE MENENDEZ, No. (S4) 23-Cr-490 (SHS), United States District Court, S.D. New York (July 31, 2025) the USDC upheld the convictions after a lengthy analysis of issues raised by Ms. Menendez.
KEY POINTS
-
Bribery and Corruption:
The evidence presented was sufficient to prove a corrupt quid pro quo involving official acts related to the Egypt scheme, New Jersey state criminal matters, and the Daibes federal prosecution scheme.
-
Menendez promised to sign off on a foreign military sale to Egypt and exerted pressure on the USDA to favor IS EG Halal Certifiers Inc., a company owned by Hana.
-
Payments and benefits received included mortgage payments, consulting fees, and a Mercedes-Benz convertible .
-
Obstruction of Justice:
Menendez and Nadine Menendez attempted to obstruct justice by creating false documents and transmitting false information to the grand jury.
They fabricated a cover story that payments received were loans, not bribes .
-
Conspiracy to Act as an Agent of a Foreign Principal:
Menendez acted as an agent of Egypt by sharing sensitive information and assisting Egyptian officials in various ways.
The evidence showed Menendez’s shift in public position to be less critical of Egypt and his involvement in meetings and communications with Egyptian officials .
-
Venue and Legal Proceedings:
The court found that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York for all counts.
The court denied Nadine Menendez’s motion for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, finding no manifest injustice.
-
Multiplicitous Counts:
Counts 1 and 15 were found to be multiplicitous, and judgment was imposed on only one of these counts .
Conclusion
The court upheld the jury’s verdict, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions on all counts. The motion for a new trial was denied, and the court emphasized the importance of ensuring justice and maintaining the integrity of the legal process .
Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 was denied on the ground that the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to sustain her conviction on all counts; in addition, defendant’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 was denied on the ground that defendant has failed to identify any injustice – let alone a manifest injustice – requiring a new trial.
ZALMA OPINION
Senator and Mrs. Menendez engaged in multiple schemes with, among others, the government of Egypt that allowed them to gain money and gold bars in exchange for favorable action in the US Senate. The Crime was egregious and the convictions were rendered by the jury after hearing convincing evidence. Although the opinion is lengthy none of the claims made by Mrs. Menedez for a new trial or an acquittal were convincing.
(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 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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
