Arsonist Incompetently Moves Pro Se to Avoid Prison
Post 5239
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRX8TfKn, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gY3Jvnqp and at https://lnkd.in/gRCaaf-3, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Christopher A. Barosh v. Morris Houser, et al., Civ. No. 22-0769, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (November 25, 2025) a convicted arsonist and insurance fraudster moved the USDC acting in Pro se filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Reid’s Recommendation that the US District Judge dismiss his § 2254 Petition to avoid jail.
BACKGROUND
In October 2005, Barosh set fire to his girlfriend’s Philadelphia home — some 25 hours before the cancellation of the property’s insurance policy. Several witnesses saw Barosh leaving the property shortly before the fire erupted. After the fire, Barosh made “two separate admissions of guilt.”
He attempted to pay an acquaintance to provide him with an alibi for the time of the arson. The eyewitnesses, brother, and acquaintance all testified at trial.
In December 2012, a Philadelphia jury convicted Barosh of arson and insurance fraud. He was sentenced to 9.5 to 22 years’ incarceration.
The Superior Court rejected Barosh’s direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied allocatur (the right to appeal).
Acting Pro se, Barosh sought Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) relief. At some point, Barosh was represented by counsel. Before the PCRA Court issued a decision, Barosh appealed to Superior Court, which dismissed his claims as premature. The PCRA Court then issued a Notice to Dismiss and — after Barosh filed two more premature appeals — formally dismissed his Petition. The Superior Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court again denied allocatur.
in April 2022, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Reid for a Report and Recommendation. Respondents oppose relief. Judge Reid recommended that the District Court Judge dismiss Barosh’s Petition because he filed four months after the one-year deadline.
The District Court Judge reviewed de novo those portions of the Report to which Barosh files timely, specific objections and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part Magistrate Judge Reid’s findings or recommendations.
OBJECTIONS
Barosh argued that Judge Reid should have ruled that the AEDPA limitations clock was equitably tolled. However, the limitations clock is tolled only if Barosh has shown: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.
Actual Innocence
Barosh argued, in the alternative, that Judge Reid should have excused his untimely filing because the actual innocence exception applies. An actual innocence claim requires a petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence — whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence — that was not presented at trial. Barosh offered no new evidence.
The District Court on the 24th day of November, 2025, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation Petitioner’s Objections and Respondent’s Response it was ORDERED that:
1 Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED;
2 Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3 Petitioner’s claims are DISMISSED;
4 A certificate of appealability will not issue; and
5 The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
ZALMA OPINION
I never are surprised that people who are convicted of the most dangerous and violent form of insurance fraud – Arson for Profit – have the chutzpah (unmitigated gall) to continue to move the courts for freedom or reduction of sentence without facts or law supporting their claims. The court did not fall for the attempt, let the Magistrate Judge do the work and then refused the application for relief. He stays in jail as he should.
(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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
