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.
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, ...
