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]
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
