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.
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 ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
