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.
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 ...
Excellence in Claims Handling
Posted on October 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Common Problems in a Jewelers’ Block Policy Investigation
If you are not a subscriber you will read from this link until you reach the paywall end of this blog post as the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button above.
This is a taste of the latest Excellence in Claims Handling Article for subscribers to my substack. Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
The History of the Jewelers’ Block Policy
The ‘jewelers’ block policy’ had its origin about 1920, and since that time the policy and the proposal upon which it is based have become more or less standard.
The Inland-Marine Insurance Bureau, of which appellant is a member, prescribes contracts and proposals for such policies that are ...
Self Insurance is Excess Over Primary Insurance
Post 4572
Posted on October 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Employment Plan is Insurance Because it Transferred Risk and Contained Claim, Exclusion, and Priority Provisions.
In Ajay Kolli, & c. et al. v. Kaleida Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 06167, No. 72, New York Court of Appeals (October 22, 2026) Dr. Venkateswara Kolli treated a patient in 2011 while serving as an on-call, per diem physician for Kaleida Health. The patient later sued Dr. Kolli and Kaleida for medical malpractice.
In 2011, decedent Dr. Venkateswara Kolli treated a patient as part of his duties pursuant to an on-call, per diem physician employment agreement with defendant Kaleida Health. The patient subsequently sued Dr. Kolli and Kaleida. Dr. Kolli sought indemnity from his primary medical malpractice insurer, MLMIC Insurance Company (MLMIC), as well as his excess insurer Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPIC).
The underlying medical malpractice action settled after Dr. Kolli’s death. Kaleida, MLMIC, and ...
RICO Suit Against Law Firm & Health Care Pros Fails
Posted on October 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
UBER AND FEDEX FIGHT FRAUD
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is Designed to Defeat Fraud Perpetrators
In Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Simon & Simon P.C., et al., Civil Action No. 25-5365, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (October 13, 2026) Uber Technologies, Inc. and Federal Express Corporation sued attorney Marc Simon, his firm Simon & Simon, P.C., and several medical professionals and practices under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
They allege the defendants orchestrated a scheme to generate and litigate fraudulent personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents involving Uber and FedEx drivers. Uber and FedEx incurred defense costs and paid settlements on some claims. The court earlier denied a motion to dismiss, finding proximate causation adequately pleaded. Fact discovery is set to close December 21, 2026.
Discovery showed Uber’s...
