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]
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
