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.
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 ...
