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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
