Fraudster Tries to Reduce His Sentence by Continuing His Fraud
Post number 5267
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gn6SUUqV, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g4PiYrAp and at https://lnkd.in/giHCPFAw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Spite of Defendants Claims He Will Spend Serious Time in Prison
In United States Of America v. Henry Ford, Criminal Action No. 23-130, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (January 5, 2026) Henry Ford (no relation to the creator of the Model T), also known as “Cleothus Lefty Jackson,” was indicted and pled guilty to one count of securities fraud and aiding and abetting, along with seven counts of wire fraud.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant falsely represented to victims that a business he controlled, Fallcatcher, had “pilot approvals in writing” with two large insurance companies and that several states “want the [Fallcatcher] technology” [Count Five]. In reality, Fallcatcher did not have any pilot programs with insurance companies and the Letter Of Intent was not a legitimate document.
Ford founded and operated several Fallcatcher entities, holding various executive roles, and purportedly used some of the funds to promote the business and hire employees.
Ford orchestrated a fraudulent investment scheme involving the sale of securities tied to companies he controlled, collectively known as “Fallcatcher.” The scheme defrauded 61 victims out of nearly $5 million. The SEC recovered and returned a portion of the funds, but over $2 million in restitution remains outstanding.
Approximately sixty-one (61) investor victims invested $4,964,775.79 in Fallcatcher, in return for shares of Fallcatcher’s common stock at a price of $.50 per share. These investments constituted the purchase of securities. And although Defendant did not have access to the investment proceeds located in Fallcatcher bank accounts, bank records reflected that Defendant and his wife received approximately $493,000 in payments from Fallcatcher after the proceeds were in the accounts.
The Present Criminal Case
In the instant criminal case a grand jury returned an eight-count Indictment against Defendant. On May 13, 2025, Defendant pled guilty to all charges in the Indictment, pursuant to a written plea agreement. The parties agreed, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of imprisonment between forty-six (46) and seventy-eight (78) months is the appropriate disposition of this case.
Legal Issues & Sentencing
The sentencing in this case centers on the calculation of “loss” under § 2B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines. The court clarified that “loss” means the actual harm suffered by victims. This means that any money recovered and returned to victims should be deducted from the loss calculation.
Analysis/Discussion
First, the money recovered by the SEC and returned to victims was deducted from the loss calculation, as only the net loss actually suffered by victims is relevant to a sentencing court.
Second, the court rejected the argument that funds not returned but used for “legitimate business purposes” should be excluded from the loss calculation. The rationale is that such expenditures, even if ostensibly for business operations, do not offset the loss suffered by victims, as the funds were obtained through fraud.
Fraud Loss Calculation in the Presentence Report
In the Presentence Report (“PSR”), the Probation Officer set the applicable fraud loss at $4,964,775.79. Since the loss exceeded $3,500,000, but was less than $9,500,000,” eighteen (18) offense levels were added.
Defendant Ford objected to the loss amount. The Court found that under § 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines: (1) the money returned to the victims by the SEC is not included in the amount of “actual loss”; and (2) the remainder of investment funds apparently used for “legitimate business expenses” are not excluded from “actual loss.”
The Government argued that because Defendant’s misrepresentations successfully resulted in investors transferring approximately $4.9 million to Fallcatcher Inc., Defendant caused “actual loss” in that amount once the funds were out of the victims’ possession.
Since the $2,095,480.38 balance was actually lost by the victims, he received no credit. The defendant has clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for the offense. Accordingly, the offense level is decreased by two levels. The defendant has assisted the authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the defendant’s own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of the intention to enter a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the offense level is decreased by one additional level.
Total Offense Level: 24
In conclusion the court concluded that at Offense Level of 24, with a Criminal History Category of II, the guideline range for imprisonment is fifty-seven (57) to seventy-one (71) months.
ZALMA OPINION
Fraudsters, even when arrested and convicted with a guilty plea insist on drawing courts into lengthy opinions to support the serious sentence the fraud perpetrator using a famous person’s name as his own, will be sentenced – contrary to his objections, between 57 and 71 months in prison for his fraud.
(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 InsuranceClaims 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 ...
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 ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...