Guilty Verdict of Mortgage Fraud Scheme Stands
Post 5010
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-epidemic-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-6kldc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6q873m-fraud-is-epidemic.html and at https://youtu.be/8EOUxLFggc0, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
People Who Commit Fraud Have no Respect and Compelled the Trial Court to Deal With Dozens of Ineffective Motions
People Who Commit Fraud Have no Respect and Compelled the Trial Court to Deal With Dozens of Ineffective Motions
A jury convicted Defendant Jeffrey Young-Bey on twelve counts related to a mortgage-fraud scheme he perpetrated in the District of Columbia. Young-Bey moved for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. The USDC, in United States Of America v. Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, Criminal Action No. 21-661 (CKK), United States District Court, District of Columbia (February 28, 2025) found the verdict was based on convincing evidence and denied his motion.
FACTS
A mortgage-fraud scheme in the District of Columbia resulted in the conviction of Jeffrey Young-Bey on twelve counts related to the scheme, including Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Bank Fraud, Mail Fraud, Bank Fraud, Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments, Expenditure Money Laundering, and Aggravated Identity Theft.
Young-Bey orchestrated a scheme to steal the title to two properties in Washington, D.C. and convinced a bank to loan money against those properties. He created fake deeds, forged signatures, and tricked the D.C. Recorder of Deeds into memorializing the fraudulent ownership. Using these fraudulent deeds, Young-Bey and his co-defendant, Martina Jones, secured loans from Hard Money Bankers.
At trial, the Government proved that Young-Bey orchestrated a scheme to steal the title to two properties in Washington, D.C. and convince a bank to loan money against those properties.
Using the fraudulent deed, Young-Bey and Jones worked together to strike a deal with Hard Money Bankers (“Hard Money”), a real-estate financier. Young-Bey and Jones lied to Hard Money, telling them that Jones had inherited the Bryant Street property and that Jones was renting it to a non-existent tenant. With the fake deed and a fake lease in hand, Young-Bey and Jones convinced Hard Money to lend Jones $350,000 against the Bryant Street Property. When Jones received the money, she wired half of it to Young-Bey at his direction. And Young-Bey used these proceeds to buy a BMW with a cashier’s check.
The jury found him guilty of conspiring to commit, and committing, frauds and confidence schemes. The entire purpose of the conspiracy and the frauds was to make forged documents and lies appear as legitimate as possible.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 permits a defendant to move for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal if the evidence presented at trial cannot sustain a conviction. The Court must presume, when considering such a motion, that the jury has properly carried out its functions of evaluating the credibility of witnesses, finding the facts, and drawing justifiable inferences.
MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL
A rational jury could have concluded that, with fraudulent documents in hand, Young-Bey felt no need to lie or obscure his identity. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, a rational jury could have concluded that Young-Bey acted knowingly and with the intent to defraud.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, and for all the reasons stated, the Court denied Young-Bey’s Motion for Acquittal.
MOTIONS DENIED
In sum, Young-Bey is not entitled to a new trial because has not shown any error that was substantial and not harmless that affected his substantial rights.
The court’s decision was based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, which showed that Young-Bey knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme with the intent to defraud. The court also addressed various legal standards and arguments presented by Young-Bey, ultimately finding no basis for acquittal or a new trial.
Accordingly, the Court denied Young-Bey’s Motion for a New Trial and Motion for Judgement of Acquittal.
ZALMA OPINION
I’m tired of reading cases taking up the time of courts across the USA to try, convict, argue, appeal and just annoy the legal process. Mr. Young-Bey was convicted in a fair trial before a jury of his peers of crimes relating to fraudulent actions damaging lenders to live well, profit and purchase expensive automobiles. His conviction, as described in a multi-page opinion of the USDC was founded in convincing evidence that a rational jury could only find him, as it did, guilty. May he enjoy his time in prison.
(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
Intentionally Shooting a Woman With A Rifle is Murder
Post 5196
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 5150 posts.
You Plead Guilty You Must Accept the Sentence
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Mark D. Redfield, No. 20 WDA 2025, No. J-S24010-25, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (September 19, 2025) the appellate court reviewed the case of Mark D. Redfield, who pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for killing April Dunkle with malice using a rifle.
Affirmation of Sentence:
The sentencing court’s judgment was affirmed, and jurisdiction was relinquished, concluding no abuse of discretion occurred.
Reasonable Inference on Trigger Pulling:
The sentencing court reasonably inferred from the guilty plea facts that the appellant pulled the trigger causing the victim’s death, an inference supported by the record and consistent with the plea.
Guilty Plea Facts:
The appellant admitted during the plea hearing...
The Judicial Proceedings Privilege
Post 5196
Posted on September 25, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Judicial Proceeding Privilege Limits Litigation
In David Camp, and Laura Beth Waller v. Professional Employee Services, d/b/a Insurance Branch, and Brendan Cassity, CIVIL No. 24-3568 (RJL), United States District Court, District of Columbia (September 22, 2025) a defamation lawsuit filed by David Camp and Laura Beth Waller against Insurance Branch and Brendon Cassity alleging libel based on statements made in a letter accusing them of mishandling funds and demanding refunds and investigations.
The court examined whether the judicial proceedings privilege applieD to bar the defamation claims.
Case background:
Plaintiffs Camp and Waller, executives of NOSSCR and its Foundation, sued defendants Insurance Branch and Cassity over a letter alleging financial misconduct and demanding refunds and audits. The letter ...
Misrepresentation or Concealment of a Material Fact Supports Rescission
Post 5195
Don’t Lie to Your Insurance Company
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v6zefq8-untrue-application-for-insurance-voids-policy.html and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Imani Page v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, No. 370765, Court of Appeals of Michigan (September 22, 2025) because defendant successfully established fraud in the procurement, and requested rescission, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant was entitled to rescind the policy and declare it void ab initio.
FACTS
Plaintiff's Application:
Plaintiff applied for an insurance policy with the defendant, indicating that the primary use of her SUV would be for "Pleasure/Personal" purposes.
Misrepresentation:
Plaintiff misrepresented that she would not use the SUV for food delivery, but records show she was compensated for delivering food.
Accident:
Plaintiff's SUV was involved in an accident on August ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is 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.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is 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.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...
