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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
