Compassion Needed by Victims not Fraudster
Post 5083
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gimEzeKq and at https://lnkd.in/gjvwPEEz, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
United States Of America v. Chad Lightfoot, No. 3:17-CR-00274, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division (May 6, 2025) the Court dealt with a Motion for Compassionate Release filed by Defendant Chad Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”). The United States of America (“the Government”) opposed the Motion.
BACKGROUND
Lightfoot is an incarcerated inmate with the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). He filed a Motion requesting compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Lightfoot alleged extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief based on the criteria set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Lightfoot made false and fraudulent representations to procure funds from a federal disaster relief program. Lightfoot claimed that his residence in Monroe, Louisiana sustained damage from a flood, when in fact, Lightfoot was residing in New Orleans during the time the incident occurred. After a four-day trial, a jury convicted Lightfoot on the sole count of the Indictment.
SENTENCING
The Court sentenced Lightfoot to 71 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years’ supervised release. Lightfoot is expected to be released on December 5, 2025.
RELEVANT POST CONVICTION LITIGATION
On February 26, 2024, Lightfoot filed a “Motion for Compassionate Release and or Reduction of Sentence (Amendment 821) and Appointment of Counsel.”
LAW & ANALYSIS
Generally, a district court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed. However, § 3582(c)(1)(A) sets forth narrow circumstances where a court may “reduce the term of imprisonment” and “impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment.”
The Court may only grant relief when the defendant shows that
1. extraordinary and compelling reasons justify a sentence reduction;
2. such a reduction is consistent with applicable statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and
3. early release would be consistent with the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).
Extraordinary and Compelling Criteria
Lightfoot must demonstrate that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant reducing his sentence. the Sentencing Commission set forth six specific reasons that can be considered extraordinary and compelling under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i):
1. the defendant’s medical condition;
2. defendant’s age;
3. family circumstances;
4. whether defendant has been a victim of abuse during custody;
5. other reasons that are ”similar in gravity” to reasons one through four; and
6. an extraordinarily long sentence.
Lightfoot points to his “family circumstances” as the basis for his Motion. Specifically, Lightfoot claims:
his four minor children need his financial and emotional support;
his mother is suffering from dementia; and
he is a possible organ donor candidate for his sister’s kidney transplant procedure.
Lightfoot does not meet or satisfy any of the family circumstances.
Danger to the Community and Section 3553(a)
Even if Lightfoot showed extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting relief, the analysis doesn’t end there. Lightfoot’s prior conduct speaks for itself. Lightfoot has been arrested and convicted for several crimes, including, armed robbery, simple and aggravated assault and battery, bank fraud, insurance fraud, and forgery. His last offense involved a fraudulent scheme to receive thousands of dollars from a federal disaster relief by falsely claiming that his Monroe residence sustained damage from a flood. Such offenses pose a danger to the community.
The USDC concluded that releasing Defendant would be contrary to the Sentencing Commission’s directive that courts should deny compassionate release to defendants who pose a danger to their communities because Defendant’s fraud scheme lasted over a year and caused grave financial and emotional harm to his many victims.
Lightfoot’s Motion was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Chutzpah is defined as a person who murders his parents and seeks mercy because he is an orphan. People who commit fraud are, by definition, people with unmitigated gall. After being convicted and sentenced, Mr. Lightfoot tried to cut about a year off his sentence by claiming he needed to care for his children, mother and sick sister. However, the USDC refused because of the clear danger he presents to the people state of Louisiana. Lightfoot’s attempt to reduce his sentence was found by the USDC to be an example of chutzpah and he will serve his full sentence.
(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.
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
