Chutzpah: Serial Arsonist & Insurance Fraudster Requests Shortened Sentence
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDiEdMAn, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gzu2Sj4R and at https://lnkd.in/gf7ufCbr and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 blog posts.
Post 4827
Arson-for-Profit is the most evil form of insurance fraud where people may be injured or die. Defendant Michael Thomas set fire to many properties in a mobile home park and then used the mail to collect insurance money. He was charged with four counts of mail fraud, went to trial and the jury convicted him on all counts. The Court sentenced him to a below-guidelines sentence of ninety months of imprisonment. His sentence is set to expire on February 11, 2025. Mr. Thomas is currently under home confinement under the CARES Act.
In United States Of America v. Michael Thomas, No. 3:18-CR-45 JD, United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division (June 6, 2024) Proceeding pro se, Mr. Thomas moved for a reduction in his sentence and the court considered his claims and rejected them.
BACKGROUND
After serving time in prison, Mr. Thomas was released by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to home confinement under the CARES Act to finish the rest of his sentence, which is expected to end next February. Mr. Thomas claims that the BOP is prohibiting him from securing employment as a pilot, a job which he held before being convicted of the fraud offenses. He states that he needs this job to maximize his income in order to repay restitution, support his family, and repay student debts. Mr. Thomas insists that his inability to work because of home confinement constitutes atypical circumstances warranting compassionate release.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court generally cannot modify a sentence once the sentence has been imposed. An exception to that general rule allows a court to modify a sentence, after considering if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” the reduction is consistent with policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
This analysis proceeds in two steps. At the first step the defendant must identify an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction. If the defendant establishes such a reason, the district court, in the discretion conferred by the statute. The defendant’s rehabilitation is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason.
DISCUSSION
For four years, Mr. Thomas was engaged in mail fraud schemes against insurance companies. As part of those schemes, he and an associate caused seven fires at various dwellings in North Judson, Indiana. After the fires, he filed for and collected insurance payments on four properties that were damaged or destroyed by these fires.
Of the seven fires, two of them were at vacant properties, set to deflect suspicion from Mr. Thomas’s insurance fraud. By setting fires to residences, Mr. Thomas displayed no regard for the welfare and safety of those who lived nearby. While the dwellings he burned may have been unoccupied, his actions put first responders directly in harm’s way and there was no guarantee that the fires would not spread to nearby, occupied homes. The nature of Mr. Thomas’s criminal conduct, the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense, as well as the importance of deterring insurance fraud – among other factors – outweigh any mitigating circumstances in favor of early release.
The court concluded that Mr. Thomas did not establish an extraordinary and compelling reason for modifying his sentence. That Mr. Thomas has a limited ability to do other jobs rather than his preferred one due to his home detention status does not convert his situation into an extraordinary one. There’s no compelling reason to modify his sentence.
Therefore, Mr. Thomas’ motion for compassionate release or reduction in sentence was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
A professional pilot acted as a serial arsonist and insurance fraudster. He was convicted of the violent and dangerous crime of arson for profit and served time. He was lucky and allowed to serve the remainder of his sentence at home and then, with unmitigated gall, complained that the home confinement prevented him from making more money as a pilot and asked for his sentence to be reduced. The Court had no empathy and required him to fulfill his entire sentence.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
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 &
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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 X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
