Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into evidence.
The defendant, who represented himself at trial, introduced eleven defense exhibits into evidence before the state rested its case but did not call any witnesses of his own or introduce any additional defense exhibits thereafter.
Following a bench trial, the court acquitted him of first-degree larceny by defrauding a public community but convicted him of health insurance fraud under General Statutes § 53-442(1). The larceny acquittal rested on the state’s failure to prove that he improperly retained more than $2,000, given the availability of a lower payment rate for non-face-to-face services.
The fraud conviction rested on knowingly submitting materially false or misleading claim information with specific intent to defraud.
The offense was classified as a class C misdemeanor. After correction of his sentence, Abdulaziz received three months’ incarceration, execution suspended, and one year of probation.
In 2026, he filed a habeas petition challenging the conviction. The Commissioner asserted res judicata and procedural default and moved to dismiss.
LAW
Dismissal:
Practice Book § 23-29(2) and (5) permits dismissal when a petition fails to state a claim for habeas relief or another legally sufficient ground exists. A petitioner must plead facts that, if proven, establish entitlement to relief.
Construction of pleadings:
The court accepts alleged and necessarily implied facts and construes them favorably to the petitioner.
Procedural default:
Claims that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal generally cannot be raised collaterally unless the petitioner demonstrates good cause for the omission and actual prejudice.
Res judicata:
In the habeas constitutional context, the doctrine bars claims actually raised and litigated in an earlier proceeding.
DISCUSSION
The petition asserted eight categories of claims:
double jeopardy;
valuation error;
clearly erroneous factual findings;
insufficient evidence;
Appellate Court error;
trial and appellate due process violations;
federal preemption; and
prosecutorial misconduct.
Abdulaziz argued that neither defense applied because his claims arose from the Appellate Court’s decision and were not reasonably available in their present form before that opinion issued.
The Commissioner maintained that the claims were either previously litigated or available for presentation during the original proceedings and direct appeal.
ANALYSIS
The court resolved the motion from the pleadings. Even construed favorably, the claims rested on facts apparent in the underlying record and could have been presented on direct appeal.
Abdulaziz could have challenged perceived errors or inconsistencies in that opinion through his petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Denial of discretionary review did not permit him to renew those challenges through habeas proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss under Practice Book § 23-29(2) and (5). Abdulaziz failed to plead a legally sufficient response to res judicata and procedural default and therefore failed to state a claim for habeas relief.
The dismissal rested on procedural barriers, not a new determination of the merits of the eight asserted claims.
Because the petitioner did not plead a legally cognizable response to the affirmative defenses set forth within the respondent's return, the court concluded that he has failed to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted. The court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss,
ZALMA OPINION
When a petition for Habeas relief is opposed the petitioner is required to plead a legally cognizable response to the affirmative defenses the petition fails. Abdulaziz failed to plead a legally sufficient response to res judicata and procedural default and therefore failed to state a claim for habeas relief. Insurance fraud was easy to prove because Abdulaziz was in Dallas, Texas, on the dates he claimed to have provided those services in Connecticut.
(c) 2026, Barry Zalma
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.
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 ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
