# data[].attributes.body
The action of forging or producing a copy of a document, signature, banknote, or work of art.

I copy millions in fake money

# data[].attributes.body
Entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft

Tim robs my house and takes everything.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Ma'am, there's been an intrusion at your home." These are a few words you never want to hear as a homeowner.

Recently, one of our homeowners was headed home when they were advised by EMC Security that there was a burglary in progress. The Monitoring Center immediately dispatched police and remained on the phone with the homeowner when she pulled onto her property. She noticed her door had been ripped off, and we advised her to leave and wait up the street until the police arrived. The homeowner reached out to her family members to inform them of the break in.

Without an immediate response from our Monitoring Center, this situation may not have had a happy ending. We're proud to protect our customers' homes, businesses and their lives.

Encountering a burglar in your home can turn a bad situation into a worse one.

Here are 4 tips to stay safe if you are notified by your alarm company of an alarm in your home:

1. Do not enter your home if you have been advised that an alarm has been received until you have verified it is safe to enter.

2. Do not allow a neighbor or friend to "check things out" until you are certain that your home is safe and secure.

3. Do not assume an alarm going off while you are home is a false alarm. It could be real. Unless you're sure you set off the alarm, we advise waiting until police arrive or until you have determined the source of the alarm before you reset it and cancel response from the monitoring station.

4. Never enter a home that has signs of forced entry. You can't be sure the intruder is long gone or still be on the premises. It's not worth the chance to find out.

For even more safety tips, connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest and LinkedIn. Or share the love and review us online!
Return to the Blog Home Page
Return to the Blog Home Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to Do When A Home Burglary Is In Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Ma'am, there's been an intrusion at your home." These are a few words you never want to hear as a homeowner. Recently, one of our homeowners was headed home when they were advised by EMC Security that there was a burglary in progress.

# data[].attributes.body
The practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

I rob a bank with an ak-47

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Liii Lyrics: Why is you always... / Man I know you snitchin', bruh / I swear, bruh, that's why I don't fuck with niggas at all, bruh / Cause you know why? / All you niggas is snitchin', man

# data[].attributes.body
Action of robbing a person or place.

I walk into a store and hold them at gun point and take all the candy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following is an op-ed submitted by Yossie Hollander,
Chairman of the Israeli Institute for Economic Planning

At times there are critical moments when indecision or inaction can cause repercussions that can last for decades if not more. The Natural Gas Robbery is perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of the modern state of Israel. At best, it is an extreme example of bad government that, as it stands now, is costing Israeli consumers tens of billions of dollars, including, of course, the Hareidi population.

Indeed, the deal is costing Hareidi families more, because larger families tend to use more natural gas - especially with blechs left on over Shabbos and Yom Tov.

Why should the Hareidi population care?

Why should the Hareidi population care?

The answer is, of course, economics. If these funds are siphoned off by Big Oil conglomerates then the money neither ends up in the hands of individual families nor in the hands of the Israeli government. It is therefore crucial that every segment of Israel's population be aware of the closed-door deals that is transpiring now - and speak out against it.

The current debate really concerns the future of the price of natural gas throughout Israel. Companies want to maximize profits. A conglomerate of gas companies headed by Noble Energy (a US company) and Delek (owned and controlled by Yizhak Tshuva) want to sell the gas that belongs to the citizens of Israel at a price that is high as possible. The general public wishes to purchase natural gas at the lowest possible price. In a completely free market, the laws of supply and demand should be the determinants of gas prices. However, energy and fuel markets are generally subjected to government regulation to protect consumers from both price volatility as well as to protect crucial supply needs. In this case, the government has unknowingly granted a monopolistic concession to the Nobel-Delek partnership.

What then should be the determinant for how gas supplies should be priced? Two factors should be employed. The first is that every step should be taken to ensure as much healthy competition as possible. The second step is that oil and gas economists should be employed in order to determine the ideal pricing that would balance both helping to grow the economy as well ensuring that crucial supplies be made available. This is generally decided by sticking to the general industry standard in world markets. The current estimates of Israel's top private energy economists come in at about half of the pricing structure that the government had agreed to give the big Gas conglomerates.
In other words, they sold the farm.
Currently, the government's efforts at preventing monopolistic competition have been minimal and ineffective, and the outsized pricing structure has failed to include adequate price ceilings.

Let's look at an example using real numbers. The common IRR (internal rate of return) in the oil industry is some 8-10%. Noble/Tshuva and the other partners rate of return is pegged at an astounding 23%. Indeed, under a new agreement, it may even be significantly higher. That may not sound like much of a difference, but, in actuality, it is huge.

One million dollars invested at 10% a year, will yield $17.5 million after 30 years. A 23% profit margin per year, will yield a profit of $498 million after 30 years. This is a bad deal, both for the government as well as its citizenry.

Here, of course, the numbers are significantly higher. It is not just one million being invested but hundreds of millions.
There is a Halachic obligation to be concerned for excessive costs to the public. The Gemorah in Moed Katan 27b tells us that when Jews were burying their dead in the finest clothing, Rabban Gamliel HaZakain arose and declared that enough was enough. He decreed that from that point on, we bury our relatives in tachrichim. The case concerning gas is no different.

As it is the Hareidi population is still suffering from the repercussions of the cuts initiated by the last government. Kollel families are barely able to put food on the table and the situation has not been relieved. It is crucial for the Haredi community not to look the other way and weigh in on an issue that affects them the most.
Yossie Hollander is the Chairman of the Israeli Institute for Economic Planning and a co-founder of the Fuel Freedom Foundation, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to reducing the cost of vehicles by opening the market to cheaper fuel choices. He is a successful entrepreneur and philanthropist with more than 40 years of experience building successful software companies. In addition, he is the founder and chairman of Our Energy Policy Foundation, which is dedicated to creating an open dialogue and consensus on U.S. energy policy. Mr. Hollander serves on the executive board and management committee of the Weizmann Institute of Science. He is a member of several Board of Directors, including USC and a member of the advisory board of the Cornell University Center for a Sustainable Future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following is an op-ed submitted by Yossie Hollander, Chairman of the Israeli Institute for Economic Planning At times there are critical moments when indecision or inaction can cause repercussions that can last for decades if not more. The Natural Gas Robbery is perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of the modern state of Israel.

# data[].attributes.body
theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one's trust or belonging to one's employer.

I give the bank one million dollars and they take some for them selves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THEFT & EMBEZZLEMENT | Stealth Investigations Consultants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Billions of dollars are lost every year to theft and embezzlement. The vast majority of these crimes are, sadly, from within the company itself. Small businesses are most vulnerable averaging losses of nearly $100,000 per incident.1 A single employee can bankrupt a small business and, if not acted upon quickly, the chances of recovering any losses decrease with time.

# data[].attributes.body
Theft of personal property.

If i stole your money out of your pocket.

# data[].attributes.body
Action involving deliberate destruction or damage to personal or private property

If i started to spray paint on the walls of SEHS.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
fullscreen

At some point in last night, someone removed the "Graffiti is a crime" sign from Banksy's Allen Street piece, but it was soon replaced with a new sign courtesy of Smart Crew, which read: "Street art is a crime."

The original piece featured a boy standing on another boy's back and holding a spray paint can, which was inside a "prohibited" sign with the words. Smart Crew says that when they got there, the sign was missing, so they "recreated a similar sign and replaced it within a few hours, with arm stencil and all." Awww-street art collaboration ♥.

Of course, by the morning, the whole thing was completely buffed over -and Smart Crew's sign was missing too! One rumor is that Banksy himself painted over it.

As for the sign, someone on Twitter claims to have it, and is willing to sell it to the highest bidder (though he hasn't presented any evidence that he actually has it). Mark Therrien told us he witnessed the sign being taken to parts unknown, "It was like 9 o'clock. What he did is he came up and he ripped the sign down, and he was kind of falling on his bike when he did it. But he ripped it down immediately and then he drove off, and he fell off his bike." Therrien said no one stopped him-"They were just like 'I can't believe he just did that'"-but said he'd tried to buy it, "I mean, I'm not going to pay a million dollars, but, it's Banksy."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smart Crew Sorta Recreated Banksy's Stencil After Sign Was "Stolen"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
fullscreen At some point in last night, someone removed the "Graffiti is a crime" sign from Banksy's Allen Street piece, but it was soon replaced with a new sign courtesy of Smart Crew, which read: "Street art is a crime."

# data[].attributes.body
The burning of someones house or property

If i were to set my friends car on fire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Insurance, by definition, only provides indemnity for contingent or unknown events. A fire intentionally set by an insured is neither contingent nor unknown, that is, it must be fortuitous. To make clear the concept of fortuity insurance companies have rewritten their policies to include a specific exclusion for intentional acts by any insured if such exclusion is allowed by state statute. Insureds, especially when one spouse is innocent of the act, attempt to avoid the intentional act exclusions by claiming that since they had nothing to do with the criminal conduct they should be able to receive the benefits of the policy.
FACTS
Rick Deeter appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (Farmers) regarding his claim for insurance proceeds against Farmers. In particular, Rick asserts that Farmers failed to craft a clear and unambiguous insurance policy and thus improperly denied his claim based on the intentional loss exclusion in the policy for his home. Rick also argues that he is an "innocent co-insured spouse" and contends that the fact that Callie Deeter, his wife, is guilty of causing an intentional loss should not bar him from recovery. He asked, in Deeter v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., 43A04-1305-PL-229 (Ind.App. 12/04/2013) [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers ], that the Indiana Court of Appeal reverse the trial court and allow him to receive the benefits of the policy.

In 1997, Rick and Callie purchased a home located in Pierceton, Indiana. In December 2010, Rick and Callie contracted with Farmers for a homeowners insurance policy. The policy provided insurance coverage for, among other things, the home the Deeters purchased in 1997. The policy insured their home for $124,000 for one year, from January 6, 2011 to January 6, 2012.

The policy contained an exclusion for intentional loss: "Intentional Acts - 'We' do not pay for loss which results from an act committed by or at the direction of an 'insured' and with the intent to cause a loss."

Both Rick and Callie were listed as insured parties on the Declaration Page of the policy. On March 3, 2011, Rick was at Maple Leaf Farms, where he is employed as an assistant manager. Callie was at home, babysitting for her niece's daughter. When her niece arrived to pick up her child, she told Callie that Rick was allegedly having an affair with another woman. After she left, Callie became irate, breaking things, and calling Rick at work to tell him that she was "tearing up the house." He became alarmed and called 911. Before the police could reach the Deeters' home, Callie purposefully started a fire in the living room on the first floor. When the police arrived, Callie was standing in the driveway, and she told the responding officer that she had set the fire. She was charged with arson, a class B felony, and later entered a plea agreement wherein she pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class D felony.

Farmers refused to pay on the insurance policy, stating that, because Callie had intentionally burned down the house, the situation fell within the intentional loss exclusion of the insurance policy. Rick filed a claim for insurance proceeds against Farmers, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court, finding no genuine issue of material fact, granted Farmers's motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Under Indiana law, insurance contracts are governed by the same rule of construction as other contracts. In interpreting a written contract, the court will neither extend the coverage provided nor rewrite policy language that is clear and unambiguous. The policy exclusion for intentional loss was clear and unambiguous. Callie intentionally set fire to her home and took criminal responsibility for her actions, placing the Deeters squarely within the policy exclusion.

Rick also argued that the innocent spouse rule does or should apply in this case. He asserts that, because he is an "innocent co-insured spouse," he should not be barred from recovering under the insurance policy. In Fuston v. National Mut. Ins. Co., 440 N.E.2d 751, 754 (Ind.Ct.App. 1982) the court determined that, where an insurance company had not provided an explicit exclusion for intentional loss by a co-insured, it was possible for the innocent spouse to recover. The Fuston court highlighted the lack of an explicit exclusion in the insurance policy under consideration in that case.

Finding a void in Indiana case law the court of appeal determined that when an insurance company has included an explicit exclusion in its policy to cover loss that results from an intentional act by a co-insured, it will respect the parties' right to contract and enforce that exclusion. Here, it was clear that Callie and Rick were both listed as an "insured" on the insurance policy, and the policy explicitly stated that it would not cover a loss that resulted from an intentional act of an insured.

The undisputed evidence shows that Callie purposefully and intentionally burnt down her home, and Farmers was within the scope of its contractual rights to deny the Deeters' insurance claim in accordance with the intentional loss exclusion contained in the policy.

Different states have ruled differently with regard to the claim of an innocent spouse. In this case the policy clearly and unambiguously excluded any loss intentionally set by an insured. Callie and Rick agreed to the contract when they acquired the policy. They knew, or should have known, that if either did anything to intentionally damage the property there would be no coverage. Although Rick was innocent of setting the fire his actions may have precipitated Callie's anger and he agreed if his spouse intentionally caused damage there would be no coverage. To rule otherwise would allow Rick, and Callie who is still his spouse, to benefit from her intentional conduct.

By Barry Zalma, Attorney and Consultant

Reprinted with Permission from Zalma on Insurance , (c) 2013, Barry Zalma.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is a California attorney who limits his practice to consultation regarding insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and fraud and acting as a mediator or arbitrator on insurance disputes. Mr. Zalma serves as a consultant and expert almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He founded Zalma Insurance Consultants in 2001 and serves as its only consultant. He recently published the e-books, "Zalma on Rescission in California - 2013"; "Random Thoughts on Insurance" containing posts from this blog; "Zalma on Insurance;" "Murder and Insurance Don't Mix;" "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose - 2011," "Zalma on Diminution in Value Damages," "Arson for Profit" and "Zalma on California Claims Regulations," and others that are available at Zalma Books .

Mr. Zalma can be contacted at Barry Zalma or zalma@zalma.com , and you can access his free "Zalma on Insurance Fraud" newsletter at Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter .

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Insurance, by definition, only provides indemnity for contingent or unknown events. A fire intentionally set by an insured is neither contingent nor unknown, that is, it must be fortuitous. To make clear the concept of fortuity insurance companies have rewritten their policies to include a specific exclusion for intentional acts by any insured if such exclusion is allowed by state statute.