Insurance Fraud is a Violent Crime
Post 5079
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g4fAqCZ9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gJ-wNkW4 and at https://lnkd.in/gjH7AwNq, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
No Resentence: Murderer for Hire & Insurance Fraud Stays in Prison
James Theron Elliott was convicted by a jury for multiple crimes, including first-degree murder, stemming from a conspiracy to kill jewelry dealer Ben Rudman. Elliott had hired Charles Thomas to carry out the murder in exchange for valuable consideration, which the jury confirmed through the special circumstance finding of “murder for hire.”
In The People v. James Theron Elliott, H051762, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (May 14, 2025) James Theron Elliott was convicted for conspiracy to commit murder, robbery, grand theft, and insurance fraud, as well as first-degree murder.
TRIAL DETAILS
Elliott was charged with three counts, including conspiracy to commit murder, and the jury was instructed on various theories of murder liability, including conspiracy and felony murder. The jury ultimately found Elliott guilty on all counts, and his conviction was based on the direct aiding and abetting theory, which remained valid under the law even after recent legislative changes.
RESENTENCING PETITION
In 2023, after many years in prison, Elliott filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, claiming that he met the statutory conditions for relief. He argued that his conspiracy conviction did not necessarily imply intent to kill at the time of the murder, suggesting that he could have withdrawn from the conspiracy. The prosecution opposed the petition.
COURT’S RULING
The trial court denied Elliott’s petition, stating that conspiracy to commit murder is not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court noted that the jury’s true finding of the murder for hire special circumstance further confirmed Elliott’s intent to murder.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Senate Bill No. 1437 amended the felony murder rule and clarified the requirements for murder liability. The changes did not affect the direct aiding and abetting theory of murder, which requires the defendant to possess malice aforethought.
Elliott’s conviction was not impacted by the legislative changes, and he remained ineligible for resentencing.
CONCLUSION
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Elliott’s resentencing petition, concluding that he was not entitled to relief under the amended Penal Code due to the nature of his convictions.
Defendant was required to show, among other things, that he was “convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine” and that he could no longer be convicted “because of” the 2019 statutory changes. Defendant could not satisfy those requirements because he was convicted of first degree murder under a theory of direct aiding and abetting express malice murder that is unaffected by the 2019 changes.
By convicting defendant of conspiracy to commit murder, the jury necessarily found he harbored the intent to kill when he conspired to commit murder.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RESENTENCING UNDER SECTION 1172.6
Because conspiracy to commit murder is based on the conspirator’s own mental state, it requires that a defendant either act with malice or intend to kill. And because section 1172.6 does not offer relief for a person convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, any purported instructional error regarding that conviction which could have been asserted on direct appeal is irrelevant. The Legislature when it enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 did nothing to change the applicable law so as to resurrect an argument he had already abandoned.
ZALMA OPINION
Many prosecutors and judges refuse to accept the fact that insurance fraud is a violent crime. Mr. Elliot, as part of his insurance fraud attempt hired a person to murder a jeweler and was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder which required the jury to find that he directly aided and abetted the murder with express malice to murder he was not entitled to resentencing. It is good to see the California Court of Appeals accepting the fact that insurance fraud is a violent crime coupled with an intent to commit murder for hire.
(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 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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
