I have been arguing on this platform for years about the Glenn Neasham case. One of the important facts that I pointed out was that the State of California had approved this product for sale up to age 85. The court said, "Glenn Neasham appeals his conviction for committing theft … by selling an annuity policy which the prosecutor argued to the jury 'was an unsuitable product for her age' despite its approval for sale by the California Department of Insurance."
This statement was also reiterated by the court later in the opinion, "The prosecutor argued and the jury apparently agreed, that transferring her funds from a certificate of deposit to the annuity was not in … her best interest because of her age. That, however, is a matter of judgment over which reasonable persons can, and the witnesses did, disagree. Whether or not in … best interest, the policy was approved by the California Department of Insurance."
So he won! Or did he?
Glenn Neasham lost his house, his license, his job, his income for years to come — all for what? The prosecutor still gets her paycheck, still has her house, and for her, life is good. The destruction will not hurt the prosecutor, as she is immune.
Another question: Will Neasham get back his insurance license? From the statements by the court, that is "a matter of judgment." It would appear the answer should be yes, but would he be willing to put his family at risk in this type of environment?
Could this happen to you?
