Court Orders DOJ to Indict Serial Fraudster for Criminal Contempt
Post 4890
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gANKyfm5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gHJncZe8 and at https://lnkd.in/gXjP5eUQ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
September 13, 2024
The USDC described Defendant Alberto Marzan as a serial fraudster who has largely managed to dodge accountability for victimizing individuals in the entertainment industry. Plaintiff Michaleen Josephs sued Marzan and his company, Press Media Group (“PMG”), after Marzan fraudulently induced Josephs to issue a series of bogus investments and other payments. When Marzan failed to respond, the Court entered default judgment for Josephs and awarded damages and equitable relief, including a requirement that Marzan divest from his enterprises and provide any future potential investors, employees, or business associates with copies of the Court’s default judgment order and his 2014 guilty plea for insurance fraud.
In Michaleen Josephs v. Alberto Jose Marzan and Press Media Group, Inc., doing business as VumaTV, CIVIL No. 21-749 (JRT/DTS), United States District Court, D. Minnesota (August 22, 2024) found its patience exhausted because Marzan has continued to defraud others using the same businesses and has not complied with the Court’s disclosure orders, all while expressing his knowledge of, and disdain for, the Court’s order.
The Court asked the United States Department of Justice to prosecute Marzan for criminal contempt.
BACKGROUND
Marzan fraudulently induced Josephs to lend him and his business, PMG, more than $250,000, which he never repaid. Josephs also rented and furnished an apartment for Marzan based on his promise to repay her, incurring nearly $50,000 in additional expenses. Marzan’s fraud was nothing new: Josephs discovered Marzan’s prior convictions for insurance and investment fraud and eight unpaid default judgments for which Marzan was responsible.
Josephs sued Marzan for violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) predicated on mail and wire fraud, fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and abuse of process. The Court ordered default judgment for Josephs and awarded her over $800,000 in damages, interest, and attorney’s fees.
The Court entered the injunction after considering the statutory and constitutional propriety of equitable relief. The USDC found that Marzan has created an enterprise designed to skirt damages awards and is using the enterprise to intentionally evade recovery by the same people and entities harmed by the enterprise. The undisputed facts show that he takes advantage of the court’s leniency to find a new victim.
Equitable relief is appropriate when defendants take advantage of the law to shield themselves from accountability at law.
VIOLATIONS
Marzan continues to defraud employees and contractors from a business that the Court ordered him to divest from and without issuing the required disclosures. And he has done so while making clear that he is aware of, but has no regard for, the Court’s order.
DISCUSSION
Because the Court cannot let Marzan’s blatant disregard for its order go unpunished and neither compensatory nor coercive civil contempt are appropriate, the Court refers this case to the United States Attorney for a criminal contempt prosecution.
Fines would likely accomplish nothing, as Marzan habitually ignores monetary judgments.
The Court found that Marzan knew of the Court’s order and the proper mechanisms to ask the Court to reconsider, but decided he would instead disobey the order while denigrating these proceedings. He was not entitled to take matters into his own hands by unilaterally deciding to disregard the Court’s order.
The Court, therefore, requests that the United States Department of Justice prosecute Defendant Alberto Jose Marzan for criminal contempt.
ZALMA OPINION
Marzan’s actions and disrespect and failure to obey court orders is a aggressive form of chutzpah. He blatantly disobeys the orders of the court, fails to appear after receiving an order to show cause, and ignores judgments rendered against him and disobeys orders of the court. It takes a great deal of abuse to cause a U.S. District Court Judge to request the DOJ to prosecute a party before the court for criminal contempt. Hopefully the DOJ will fulfill the court’s request. Fraud should not be allowed to continue.
(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 or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; 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 ...
