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 ...
Flood Policy Limitation of Action Provision Destroys Bad Faith Suit
Post number 5376
Flood Policy Limitation of Action Provision Followed Strictly
Posted on June 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Wayne Gularte, et al. v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 5:26-cv-01426-PCP, United States District Court, N.D. California (June 15, 2026) Wayne and Doris Gularte alleged that their property sustained flood damage between January 17 and March 23, 2023. They submitted claims to Wright National Flood Insurance Company, which paid part of the claim but denied additional claimed structural losses by email on June 18, 2023.
The Gularte plaintiffs filed suit in state court on December 30, 2025, seeking $12,500 for unpaid structural losses. Wright removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss.
LAW:
A complaint in Federal Court must plead enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when the complaint lacks a ...
Bad Faith With No Breach of Contract
Post number 5375
Essential Condition of a Tort of Bad Faith Ignored in California
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/payment-all-policy-benefits-does-defeat-bad-faith-zalma-esq-cfe-yhnec and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Jennifer Bornoff v. State Farm General Insurance Company, B339796, California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division (May 1, 2026) Bornoff’s business suffered two burglaries in March 2022. She submitted claims promptly, and State Farm never disputed coverage, only valuation.
After months of delay and poor communication, State Farm paid the property-loss benefits about four months later, shortly after Bornoff sued.
ISSUE:
Whether State Farm was entitled to summary adjudication of Bornoff’s bad-faith claim when it had paid all policy benefits but allegedly caused extracontractual economic loss through unreasonable delay.
RULE:
In California, an insurer may be liable for bad faith if it unreasonably delays payment of...
Post number 5374
The Government Must Remove a Noncitizen Within 90 Days of Detention
In Jean Marcel Perez Garcia v. Warden, Florida Side South Detention Facility, et al., No. 2:26-cv-788-JES-DNF John E. Steele United States District Judge United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 10, 2026) Jean Marcel Perez Garcia, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States in 2003. After convictions for a drug offense and felony insurance fraud, he was ordered removed in 2018 but was later released under supervision.
ICE revoked that supervision in December 2025 and detained him again to execute the removal order. In February 2026, ICE transported him to the U.S.–Mexico border and sought to have him depart to Mexico, but he refused. ICE then continued to detain him for more than six months without showing that any country had agreed to accept him or that travel documents had been secured.
LAW
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), the government must remove a noncitizen within 90 days after the ...
