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conspiracy conviction did not necessarily imply intent to kill at the time of the murder, suggesting that he could have withdrawn from the conspiracy.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
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
