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.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
