BROADCASTS.com

b'

Volume 26, Issue 4 \\u2013 February 15, 2022

Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/zalma A ClaimSchool\\u2122 Publication \\xa9 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Go to my blog & Videos at: Zalma on Insurance  And at https://zalma.com/blog  

Go to the Insurance Claims Library Listen to the Podcast: Zalma on Insurance Videos from Zalma on Insurance Subscribe to Barry Zalma on Substack.com   

Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go Chutzpah: Convicted of Insurance Fraud Appeals to Avoid Going to Jail Tarek Abou-Khatwa appealed his conviction of a complex, multi-year  insurance fraud scheme. He previously asked the court to delay the start  of his incarceration pending the outcome of that appeal. On January 31,  2022, the court denied his request, explaining that Defendant\\u2019s appeal  did not present a \\u201cclose question\\u201d as to each count on which he was  sentenced to prison. In United States of America v. Tarek Abou-Khatwa, Criminal No. 18-cr-67  (TSC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (February 4,  2022) Tarek\\u2019s multiple appeals in an attempt to avoid was again brought  to the USDC. Defendant filed an \\u201cEmergency Motion\\u201d with the USDC stating his intent  to lodge a second appeal, this time challenging the court\\u2019s January 31  Order, and he requested that his self-surrender date be postponed  pending the outcome of that new appeal. Defendant\\u2019s conviction is presumed valid and he bears the burden of  rebutting that presumption. In his previous motion, Defendant failed to  rebut that presumption because he did not present a \\u201csubstantial  question of law\\u201d as to each count of his conviction for which he faces  imprisonment. Accordingly, the court held Defendant\\u2019s self-surrender  date in place. Defendant, undeterred by his losses in the USDC, now argues that his  self-surrender date should be delayed while he appeals that decision. He  contended that his current self-surrender date is not \\u201csufficient to  allow time for briefing before both the district court and the court of  appeals, as the parties originally intended.\\u201d He claims that additional  time is necessary for \\u201ca motion to the D.C. Circuit appealing this  Court\\u2019s order denying release pending appeal [to be] decided by that  Court.\\u201d  He also argues that refusal to grant further delay would  \\u201cfrustrat[e] his appeal rights under Section 3145(c) and Rule 9(b).\\u201d The court disagreed that emergency action is necessary to avoid  \\u201cfrustrating his appeal rights under Section 3145(c) and Rule 9(b).\\u201d ANALYSIS First, 18 U.S.C. \\xa7 3145(c) pertains to appeals of detention orders, not  release from custody, and so it is inapplicable. Second, nothing in the  court\\u2019s January 31, 2022, Order restricts Defendant\\u2019s ability to seek  relief from the Court of Appeals. The court, aware that the timeline for  Defendant to both appeal this court\\u2019s January 31 Order and receive a  decision on that appeal before his February 10 self-surrender date, is  truncated. However, Defendant-not the court-bears responsibility for  that accelerated schedule.  ZIFL OPINION Tarek\\u2019s fraud must have been very successful since he has the funds to  have lawyers bring multiple motions and appeals to avoid incarceration.  The actions are a clear explication of the concept of \\u201cchutzpah\\u201d or  unmitigated gall. His efforts continue to fail and it is time that he  reports to federal prison and begin his sentence after conviction for  fraud. The USDOJ should consider determining what other crimes he was  involved in that allows him funds to support the multiple motions and  appeals.