Chutzpah of Fraud Perpetrator Still Gets 36 years in Prison
Post number 5303
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraudster-fails-jail-house-lawyer-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-araye and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Prisoner Should Know Better Than Representing Himself
In The People v. Roderick Nathaniel Washington, B330868, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (March 5, 2026) Roderick Nathaniel Washington was convicted by a jury on numerous counts related to credit card and unemployment insurance fraud.
The investigation revealed that Washington orchestrated two main types of fraud. The first involved credit cards: police searches at the residences of Washington’s girlfriend and his daughter uncovered hundreds of credit profiles, personal identifying information, mail addressed to Washington, fraudulent licenses and credit cards, and forged reports.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Bank Fraud
Washington opened multiple accounts in the names of others, including deceased individuals, and then reported fraudulent activity to avoid paying debts, eventually causing nearly half a million dollars in losses to Synchrony Financial. Washington was found to have information on about 90 Synchrony accounts. Investigation revealed Washington had opened accounts in the name of other people, including dead ones. After opening these accounts, he would claim there was fraudulent activity on the account in order to avoid paying the debt on that account. The company or bank would then provide a new account, which Washington would also fail to pay off. Washington caused just under half a million dollars in loss to bank and credit card company Synchrony Financial.
Unemployment Insurance Fraud
The second type of fraud Washington committed involved California’s Employment Development Department, which runs the state’s unemployment and disability insurance program. The Department relaxed standards during the covid pandemic to address the sudden increased need. After getting through the crisis period, the Department began investigating a series of applications for unemployment benefits all sent from the same IP address.
CONVICTIONS
The jury convicted Washington of:
1. two counts of theft by false pretenses in violation of section 532, subdivision (a);
2. one count of possession of a forged driver’s license in violation of section 470(b);
3. two counts of possession of multiple person’s personal identifying information with intent to defraud in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (c)(3);
4. one count of preparing false documentary evidence in violation of section 134;
5. three counts of unlawful transfer of personal identifying information in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (d)(1);
6. four counts of possession of personal identifying information with intent to defraud in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (c)(2); and
7. 33 counts of unemployment insurance fraud in violation of Unemployment Insurance Code section 2101, subdivision (a). With regard to the unemployment insurance fraud counts, the jury found the loss from the offenses exceeded $500,000 and, after a bifurcated trial, there existed factors in aggravation.
The trial court sentenced Washington to three years on the unemployment insurance fraud count and a consecutive five years for the loss enhancement. The court sentenced Washington to consecutive eight-month terms on the other 32 unemployment insurance fraud counts and 11 of the other counts. In total, the court sentenced Washington to 36 years and eight months in prison.
LEGAL ISSUES
Washington attempted to defeat the testimony of the arresting officer. The court reviewed the case pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, which governs the disclosure of law enforcement personnel records when issues of officer credibility or misconduct are raised.
ANALYSIS
Washington appealed the judgment on several grounds, including requesting review of the trial court’s determinations under Pitchess. The appellate court examined the evidence collected, including the extensive fraudulent materials and the significant losses to financial institutions, and considered whether the trial court properly handled the Pitchess motions and other claims raised on appeal.
DISCUSSION
The Court of Appeal granted Washington’s request to review the trial court’s Pitchess determinations. After review, the court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the evidence, the application of law, or the review of law enforcement records. The appellate panel concluded that the evidence supported the convictions and that Washington’s legal challenges did not warrant reversal.
The trial court noted Washington’s repeated and demonstrated inability to follow the court’s rules, noted that sometimes legislative inaction without more does not signify approval, and this was especially true because precedent could not be applied retroactively. Rejection was appropriate to misconduct occurring like Washington’s acts here.
ZALMA OPINION
Fraudsters, like Washington, continue to prove that their criminal conduct was egregious and attempt to avoid jail with hired lawyers or acting as their own lawyer. Although Washington was a skilled criminal his activity as his own attorney established pure incompetence and an ability to annoy a trial judge beyond restraint. He deserves, and will serve, the 36 years and 8 months in prison.
(c) 2026 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 ...