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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
