No Compelling Reason to Release Convicted Arsonist and Murderer
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gciym_hC and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/guzJ3JdF and at https://lnkd.in/g_DRGB4C and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
A person with no compassion for his many victims, with an expression that defines chutzpah, sought compassionate release from his 110 year sentence in United States Of America v. John T Veysey III, No. 99 CR 00381-1, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (March 2, 2023). John T. Veysey III, while currently serving a 110-year sentence for wire fraud, arson, and felony by fire, moved the USDC for compassionate release because he was fat, had high blood pressure and was afraid of the Covid pandemic.
BACKGROUND
Throughout the 1990s, Veysey devised various deadly schemes to cause losses and collect insurance proceeds. Among other offenses, Veysey fraudulently obtained $959,849.47 in insurance proceeds from a car “accident” involving his first wife, from the death of his first wife, and from arson-for-profit fires to three of his residences. He tried to obtain an additional $1.3 million in insurance proceeds by attempting to kill his second wife and then-infant son in a house fire, and he schemed to fake the deaths of another woman and her sons.
On March 6, 2001, following a six-week trial, a jury found Veysey guilty on 18 counts. Consistent with the then-binding Sentencing Guidelines, the USDC sentenced Veysey to the statutory maximum of 110 years’ imprisonment.
Veysey argued that several factors justify a sentence reduction, including his health conditions, ongoing risks associated with COVID-19 in the federal prison system, alleged sentencing disparities between him and other offenders, his purported rehabilitation, and his preparations for reintegrating into the community. On July 6, 2022, Veysey submitted an updated motion in which he discusses COVID-19 risks, his ongoing health concerns, and his recidivism risk level.
DISCUSSION
As a general matter, a federal court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed. The court may reduce a sentence if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify release.
Extraordinary and Compelling Reason
The kind of extraordinary and compelling circumstances contemplated by the statute include some new fact about an inmate’s health or family status, or an equivalent post-conviction development, not a purely legal contention for which statutes specify other avenues of relief. Legal arguments that an initial sentence was made in error do not qualify.
Veysey first points to his health conditions-including hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and obesity-as circumstances justifying a sentence reduction. Veysey may not use a motion for compassionate release to argue that the court’s original sentencing decision was incorrect.
In addition, Veysey offered evidence of his rehabilitation while in prison. But rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for release, nor can rehabilitation render otherwise ordinary circumstances extraordinary.
Also, the fact that Veysey has now spent several years in prison and has made efforts to prepare for life outside of prison does not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason that could justify his release.
Even if Mr. Veysey were to present an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, the court would still deny his motion under the § 3553(a) factors. “Consideration of even one § 3553(a) factor may show that the others do not matter.”
The first § 3553(a) factor, which addresses the “nature and circumstances” of a defendant’s offenses and personal circumstances, strongly militates against a sentence reduction. His crimes were shocking:
-
Veysey killed his first wife,
-
tried to kill his second wife and then-toddler son,
-
torched multiple houses, and
-
purchased life insurance coverage on another woman shortly before he was arrested-all to collect insurance money.
Veysey carried out these extraordinarily serious offenses over several years, destroyed numerous lives, and caused enormous emotional and physical pain and monetary damage.
Even if Veysey had presented the court with an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release, consideration of § 3553(a)(1) alone would provide a sufficient basis for denying his motion.
ZALMA OPINION
Veysey is proof that insurance fraud is a violent crime. He managed to murder and commit arson-for-profit and insurance fraud for years before he was arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for 110 years. Like the person who murdered his parents and sought empathy because he was an orphan, Veysey defined the Yiddish term “chutzah” by asking to be released because, in prison he became obese, had high blood pressure and AFIB. The USDC, wisely, refused his request since his condition was neither extraordinary nor compelling reasons for release but the opposite, a compelling reason existed to keep him in prison forever.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
