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.
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 ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
