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
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
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 ...
Plaintiff Representing Herself Failed to Allege Jurisdiction
Adverse Rulings Alone Almost Never Establish Bias
Post number 5392
Posted on July 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Decheri Hafer v. Farmers Insurance Agency, No. 1:22-cv-0808 KES SKO, United States District Court, E.D. California (June 30, 2026) DeCheri Hafer, proceeding pro se, sued Farmers Insurance Agency alleging perjury, fraud, insurance fraud, and breach of contract.
After screening, the magistrate judge found the complaint deficient and allowed amendment. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint objecting to all magistrate judges, while defendant moved to dismiss.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was wholly unsubstantiated. Plaintiff did not object and instead sought default. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, denied default, entered judgment, and closed the case.
More than three years later, Plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b)(4) ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
Coverage for Damage to Vacant Dwelling Limited
Post number 5388
Vandalism Damage to Vacant Dwelling Excluded
Posted on July 7, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Tyrone Williamson v. Farmers Insurance Co., 2026-Ohio-2530, C. A. No. 30717, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery (July 2, 2026) Tyrone Williamson owned a duplex in Dayton, Ohio that he rented as two separate units. While the units were unoccupied by tenants, break-ins occurred in February, March, and April 2024, causing damage to doors, windows, walls, plumbing, flooring, fencing, lighting, a ceiling fan, grass, and other parts of the property, and resulting in the theft of items including tools, generators, a power washer, an air-conditioning unit, car wheels, and a radio.
Farmers Insurance paid approximately $17,000 for some damage from the first break-in but denied other claimed losses, including additional property damage, stolen personal property, and lost rent.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Farmers Insurance on Williamson’s ...
