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.
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 ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
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 a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
Disbarment of Defendant Admissible as Intrinsic Evidence of Fraud Case
Murder of Witness to Staged Auto Accident is Inadmissible in Fraud Case
Posted on August 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 5416
In United States Of America v. Ryan Harris, et al., Criminal Action No. 24-105, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (July 23, 2026) the defendants were charged in connection with an alleged staged-automobile-collision insurance fraud scheme in the New Orleans area and later crimes arising from the murder of cooperating witness Cornelius Garrison.
LAW:
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) generally bars other-act evidence offered to prove propensity but allows such evidence for non-character purposes if admissible.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The Court held that Alfortish’s disbarment was intrinsic because it explained why he allegedly funneled staged-accident clients to Vanessa Motta rather than litigating the cases himself, thereby illuminating the structure of the mail-and-wire-fraud conspiracy.
...
