Killer Abuses Court System With Multiple Attempts to Get Out of Prison
Post 5178
Posted on August 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6y6ule-convicted-of-arson-murder-must-stay-in-jail.html and at https://youtu.be/nnUpStLmDoM
Attempted Arson for Profit that Resulted in Death Requires Life in Prison
In Suresh Kumar v. United States, No. 1:22-cv-4874 (MKV), United States District Court, S.D. New York (August 26, 2025) Kumar, convicted of arson for profit where four people died sought to be let out of jail by filing a Habeas Corpus motion.
BACKGROUND
Suresh Kumar was convicted by a jury of multiple felonies for his role in burning down a hotel he owned for insurance money. Four people died, and fifteen others were injured. Kumar was only sentenced to life in prison.
Kumar pursued multiple previous challenges to his conviction and sentence, which have withstood both direct appeal and collateral attacks. Kumar now petitions for a writ of habeas corpus arguing actual innocence and citing Supreme Court cases.
THE CRIME
Suresh Kumar owned and operated a Howard Johnson hotel in Bowling Green, Kentucky together with his wife and her brother, Dave Sharma. In 1996, a fire destroyed the hotel, killed four people, and injured fifteen others. Kumar later filed an insurance claim seeking more than $4.5 million. A federal grand jury indicted Kumar and Joe Logan, a hotel janitor and the government also sought to arrest Sharma, who fled the country.
THE TRIAL
The government, at trial, argued successfully that Kumar and Sharma, together, had conspired to offer Logan money to start a fire, which Logan did. The jury convicted Kumar of all three counts with which he was charged:
1. conspiracy to commit arson;
2. arson resulting in death and aiding and abetting the same and mail fraud.
Kumar was sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentencing court found that “Mr. Kumar acted knowingly or with awareness that his actions were practically certain to create a substantial risk of death or serious injury.”
Kumar filed a direct appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Sixth Circuit considered and rejected Kumar’s arguments. The Supreme Court of the United States denied Kumar’s petition for certiorari. Thereafter, Kumar filed a petition for habeas corpus arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, among other things. The district court denied the petition, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Kumar v. United States, 163 Fed.Appx. 361 (6th Cir. 2006).
Kumar is now imprisoned at FCI Otisville, which is located in the Southern District of New York. He argued that he is innocent, at least with respect to his conviction for arson resulting in death, aiding, and abetting the same because he lacked the required mental state for intent.
Kumar contends he did not intend or know that the hotel fire would cause death.
DISCUSSION
The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Kumar’s § 2241 petition. Kumar’s § 2241 petition is precisely what the Supreme Court rejected as an “end-run” around the strict limitations on successive 2255 petitions imposed by AEDPA.
Kumar argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury to determine if Kumar was willing to aid and abet. There is no authority for Kumar’s proposed instruction.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about a defendant arguing that a sentencing court should have applied a downward departure or that a trial court should have instructed the jury differently.
In essence Kumar is asking that after serving 27 years in prison and at the age of approximately 70, Kumar has served enough time in prison.
Of course, the Court has no authority to commute his sentence.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was DENIED and the case was DISMISSED.
ZALMA OPINION
Arson for Profit is the most evil and violent form of insurance fraud. In this case, an attempt to gain $4.5 million in insurance proceeds, Kumar conspired with others to cause his hotel to burn killing four guests and injuring fifteen. He was convicted and sentenced, properly, to life in prison. Since his sentence he has filed multiple appeals and petitions all of which failed. It is understandable that he wants out of prison but his crime required life in prison and he will die in prison complaining every day to any court willing to listen to him.
(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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
