Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to be supported by probable cause and to particularly describe the place to be searched and items to be seized. Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place searched. Reviewing courts give substantial deference to a magistrate judge’s probable-cause determination. For alleged false statements or omissions a defendant must show intentional or reckless falsity or omission and materiality — meaning the corrected affidavit would not establish probable cause.
A Substantial Basis Exists To Support The Magistrate Judge’s Finding Of Probable Cause.
When a magistrate judge is presented with a search warrant application, his task is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. In making such a determination, the magistrate judge must consider the totality of the circumstances, which requires courts to consider the cumulative weight of the information set forth by the investigating officer in connection with reasonable inferences that the officer is permitted to make based upon [their] specialized training and experiences.
Moreover, the magistrate judge must read the officer’s affidavit in its entirety and in a common sense and nontechnical manner.
DISCUSSION:
The court considered three suppression arguments.
First, it found that the affidavit supplied a substantial basis for probable cause because it described Driscoll’s alleged role in Sterling Pharmacy’s foot-bath prescription business, Sterling’s relationship with MedX Marketing Solutions, beneficiary complaints, payments, and use of the identified email account in connection with the business.
Second, the court held that the warrant was sufficiently particular because it identified specific federal offenses, the email account to be searched, the relevant date range, and categories of records tied to the alleged crimes.
Third, the court rejected Driscoll’s challenges based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning her role, Jean Tolerico’s role and knowledge, provider ordering patterns, patient reviews, and the absence of direct communications with Salgado or Habeeb.
ANALYSIS:
The court’s analysis emphasized the deferential probable-cause standard and the practical realities of investigating complex health care fraud through business email communications. It reasoned that the affidavit, read as a whole and in a common-sense manner, linked the Sterling Pharmacy email account to the alleged fraud. The court also found the 2018–2020 date range reasonable because planning and business transition activities could have preceded Driscoll’s March 2018 acquisition and because the alleged scheme involved an evolving mail-order pharmacy model. Even assuming the omitted or disputed facts were included, the court concluded that they would not defeat probable cause hearing.
CONCLUSION:
The court denied Driscoll’s motion to suppress. It held that the warrant was supported by probable cause, was sufficiently particular, was not overbroad under the circumstances, and did not contain material misstatements or omissions requiring suppression.
ZALMA OPINION
People involved in insurance fraud maintain a great deal of Chutzpah (Yiddish for unmitigated gall) and tried to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a legitimate search warrant results. The arguments properly failed.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.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://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
In the Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies.
Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy. The jury found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from Defendant Carol Gardina and $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages from Defendant George Gardina.
THE APPEAL
Defendants ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
