CONVICTION FOR INSURANCE FRAUD AFFIRMED
Post 4984
UNSUCCESSFUL FAKE ACCIDENT STILL GOES TO JAIL
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBvuyK3F, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWJAwz_h and at https://lnkd.in/gf9_pqzn and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
THE PEOPLE v. STEPHEN R. JACKSON, H052419, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (January 23, 2025) Jackson tried to have his felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor because of Proposition 47.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 1992, Jackson was charged by information with conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, causing or participating in a vehicular collision or any other vehicular accident for the purpose of presenting a false or fraudulent claim; presenting or causing to be presented a false or fraudulent insurance claim; presenting a false or fraudulent claim for loss or theft, destruction, damage, or conversion of the contents of a motor vehicle; and, preparing a false police report and authorization of medical records/employment records with intent to present it in support of a false or fraudulent claim. Jackson was convicted by plea of count 2, violation of Insurance Code section 1871.1, subdivision (a)(3), a felony, and placed on felony probation.
In 2024, Jackson filed an application to have his felony conviction designated as a misdemeanor
Proposition 47, approved in November 2014, makes certain drug-and theft-related offenses misdemeanors. Nothing in the relevant statute bases the punishment for the crime of participating in a vehicular collision for the purpose of presenting a false claim on the value of the property or claim at issue.
In addition to alleging that the value of the claim at issue in his conviction should make him eligible for relief under section 1170.18, subdivision (f), Jackson argued that he “was never given a check,” “never saw the check”, and that he “didn’t destroy any property or damage any property.”
ANALYSIS
Stephen R. Jackson’s appeal was based on his conviction for causing or participating in a vehicular collision to present a false or fraudulent claim. He argued that under Proposition 47, which reduces certain property theft crimes to misdemeanors when the value is $950 or less, his offense should also be reclassified since the value of the checks was under $950.
Key Points
1. Both before and after Proposition 47, Jackson’s offense was classified as a felony under Insurance Code section 1871.1 and current Penal Code section 550.
2. The legislature intended to treat causing or participating in a vehicular collision for the purpose of presenting a false claim as a felony, regardless of the value of the claim.
3. The punishment for Jackson’s crime does not depend on the claim’s value, unlike other offenses under Insurance Code section 1871.1 and section 550, which are misdemeanors if the claim is below certain amounts.
Conclusion
The trial court properly denied Jackson’s section 1170.18, subdivision (f) petition to redesignate his felony conviction for causing or participating in a vehicular collision or any other vehicular accident for the purpose of presenting a false or fraudulent claim as a misdemeanor.
ZALMA OPINION
The people of California did away with most of Proposition 47 but it was in effect when Jackson was convicted. However, since his crime, auto insurance fraud, is always a felony even if he was so incompetent he made nothing from his crime, he was properly convicted and the court refused to change his felony to a misdemeanor. There is no excuse for committing insurance fraud and even if the fraud failed to make any money for Jackson he committed the crime. Jackson was probably caught, tried and convicted because he was an incompetent criminal and must now continue to live with the shame of a felony conviction.
(c) 2025 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
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/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
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 ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
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 ...
