Parole Violation Puts Convicted Insurance Fraudster Back in Jail
Post 4991
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gjj4ppSa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g_ubV4Cr and at https://lnkd.in/geyVYPNu, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Facts
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Kalani Watts, Nos. 2399 EDA 2023, 895 EDA 2024, No. J-S37026-24, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (January 27, 2025) Watts entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count each of obtaining possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery or subterfuge, and insurance fraud. On July 21, 2014, in accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 6 to 12 years in prison.
Watts also pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property. On September 3, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 16 to 36 months in prison, to run concurrently with Appellant’s sentence in the drug and insurance fraud case.
Watts alleged he was paroled on 6-20-19, and moved thereafter to the State of Georgia. Three years later, Watts was arrested on misdemeanors and returned back to Pennsylvania on a parole violation. Upon being seen by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Parole Board), Watts was informed that his maximum sentence was moved from 7-12-2026 to 4-29-29.
The Appeal
In this consolidated appeal, Kalani Watts (Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the orders dismissing as untimely his first petitions filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
Post Conviction Relief
Appellant filed identical, pro se PCRA petitions at two dockets. Appellant filled out portions of a pre-printed PCRA petition form and also incorporated an attached “Petition for Enforcement of Negotiated Plea Agreement” (Attachment).
The PCRA court further observed that Appellant’s petitions appeared to challenge the Parole Board’s decision to revoke his parole and pull his street time. In the alternative, the PCRA court determined that the Parole Board’s decision did not constitute a violation of Appellant’s plea agreement.
Analysis
Pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court.
Preliminarily, although the Court was willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.
Here, though Appellant cites various provisions of the federal and state constitutions, he fails to identify any decision of the United States Supreme Court or Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognizing a new constitutional right.
As Appellant has waived each of his issues raised on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the PCRA court’s orders dismissing his petitions.
ZALMA OPINION
People who engage in criminal conduct, especially when that conduct is insurance fraud, are not members of MENSA. Mr. Watts was a regular, albeit inept, criminal. He was lucky enough to be paroled only to be put back in jail for breaching the conditions of his parole by committing some misdemeanors. He then tried to change his sentence by applying as his own attorney for post conviction relief. That also failed because the bases he claimed were not established.
(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
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
