Post 5239<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nSee the video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v72snmg-go-directly-to-jail-do-not-pass-go.html<\/a> and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/XcSM5lEl4xA<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/ARONSISTFORPROFITCHUTZPAH.png?resize=640%2C360\")
In Christopher A. Barosh v. \u00a0Morris Houser, et al.,<\/em> 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\u00a0Pro se<\/em> filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Reid\u2019s Recommendation that the US District Judge dismiss his \u00a7 2254 Petition to avoid jail.<\/p>\nBACKGROUND<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nIn October 2005, Barosh set fire to his girlfriend\u2019s Philadelphia home \u2014 some 25 hours before the cancellation of the property\u2019s insurance policy. Several witnesses saw Barosh leaving the property shortly before the fire erupted. After the fire, Barosh made \u201ctwo separate admissions of guilt.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In December 2012, a Philadelphia jury convicted Barosh of arson and insurance fraud. He was sentenced to 9.5 to 22 years\u2019 incarceration.<\/p>\n
The Superior Court rejected Barosh\u2019s direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied allocatur (the right to appeal).<\/p>\n
Acting Pro se<\/em>, 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 \u2014 after Barosh filed two more premature appeals \u2014 formally dismissed his Petition. The Superior Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court again denied allocatur.<\/p>\nin 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\u2019s Petition because he filed four months after the one-year deadline.<\/p>\n
The District Court Judge reviewed de novo<\/em> 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\u2019s findings or recommendations.<\/p>\nOBJECTIONS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nBarosh 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.<\/p>\n
Actual Innocence<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nBarosh 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 \u2014 whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence \u2014 that was not presented at trial. Barosh offered no new evidence.<\/p>\n
The District Court on the 24th day of November, 2025, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Reid\u2019s Report and Recommendation Petitioner\u2019s Objections and Respondent\u2019s Response it was ORDERED that:<\/p>\n
\n- Petitioner\u2019s Objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED;<\/li>\n
- Magistrate Judge Reid\u2019s Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;<\/li>\n
- Petitioner\u2019s claims are DISMISSED;<\/li>\n
- A certificate of appealability will not issue; and<\/li>\n
- The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
I never are surprised that people who are convicted of the most dangerous and violent form of insurance fraud \u2013 Arson for Profit \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/BZTHEA-1.png?resize=300%2C282\")
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\nGo to X @bzalma;\u00a0 Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library \u2013 <\/a>https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk. <\/a><\/p>\n\nLike this:<\/h3>\n
In October 2005, Barosh set fire to his girlfriend\u2019s Philadelphia home \u2014 some 25 hours before the cancellation of the property\u2019s insurance policy. Several witnesses saw Barosh leaving the property shortly before the fire erupted. After the fire, Barosh made \u201ctwo separate admissions of guilt.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n In December 2012, a Philadelphia jury convicted Barosh of arson and insurance fraud. He was sentenced to 9.5 to 22 years\u2019 incarceration.<\/p>\n The Superior Court rejected Barosh\u2019s direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied allocatur (the right to appeal).<\/p>\n Acting Pro se<\/em>, 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 \u2014 after Barosh filed two more premature appeals \u2014 formally dismissed his Petition. The Superior Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court again denied allocatur.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s Petition because he filed four months after the one-year deadline.<\/p>\n The District Court Judge reviewed de novo<\/em> 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\u2019s findings or recommendations.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence \u2014 that was not presented at trial. Barosh offered no new evidence.<\/p>\n The District Court on the 24th day of November, 2025, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Reid\u2019s Report and Recommendation Petitioner\u2019s Objections and Respondent\u2019s Response it was ORDERED that:<\/p>\n I never are surprised that people who are convicted of the most dangerous and violent form of insurance fraud \u2013 Arson for Profit \u2013 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.<\/p>\n Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\n Go to X @bzalma;\u00a0 Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library \u2013 <\/a>https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk. <\/a><\/p>\nIn Christopher A. Barosh v. \u00a0Morris Houser, et al.,<\/em> 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\u00a0Pro se<\/em> filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Reid\u2019s Recommendation that the US District Judge dismiss his \u00a7 2254 Petition to avoid jail.<\/p>\nBACKGROUND<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
OBJECTIONS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
Actual Innocence<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\nLike this:<\/h3>\n