Suit Claiming Ex-President Attempted to Kill Plaintiff for Profit, Insurance Fraud, Assaults, Battery, and False Imprisonment Dismissed
Post 5070
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gJ-rDMa8 and at https://lnkd.in/gG3ERkXB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In a suit entitled Ivette T Echenidue v. President Biden, et al., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00517 (UNA), Judge Chutkan of the United States District Court, District of Columbia (April 17, 2025) refused to acknowledge the claims of the plaintiff.
Judge Chutkan explained that Echenidue’s suit was before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint. The court granted the in forma pauperis application and, for the reasons explained below, dismissed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), by which the court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the action is frivolous.
IS THE ACTION FRIVOLOUS?
Judge Chutkan noted that “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
A complaint that lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact is frivolous and a complaint plainly abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious.
Plaintiff, who purports to be from Ohio, Florida, and Georgia sued President Biden, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and the Fifteenth Circuit Court of Alabama in Montgomery County, although it appears that she may attempt to sue others who are not listed in the case caption. The allegations were quite difficult for an experienced judge to follow. It consisted of a hodgepodge of alleged wrongdoing, borne out of a purported government conspiracy evidenced by “death for profit, coverups, bribes, court malfeasance, racketeering, embezzlement, collusion, insurance fraud, assaults, battery, and false imprisonment.”
Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants have threatened her with murder, and that President Biden led a charge to alienate her from her mother, who was also deprived of medical care, “stripped of her rights,” “killed for profit,” and denied a “Roman Catholic burial.” In the prayer Plaintiff demands $800 million in damages from each defendant and calls for their prosecution.
CONCLUSION
Judge Chutkan concluded that plaintiff’s allegations were frivolous, and the court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint.
The federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit including where the plaintiff allegedly was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.
Applicable here, a court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational, wholly incredible or postulate events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficiently fanciful to warrant dismissal under this standard. Even generously construing plaintiff’s complaint, her allegations fail to rise above pure conjecture. For those reasons, she dismissed the suit without prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
In 1968, when I was a law student, I was required to work in a legal aid office in Venice, California, which at the time was a slum occupied only by poor, unemployed and helpless. During that time I was faced with people asking for my legal assistance by a man who claimed he invented the Norton Bomb Site that was stolen from his mind by the US Government, a man who identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth seeking assistance for his creation of Christianity and many people who were in the process of being evicted from their homes for failure to pay rent. I learned that there wee many people who spoke clearly, intelligently, competently with what appeared to be truthful but were absolutely insane. I learned to be kind but not believe or try to assist the insane and hope to help them gain psychiatric help. Judge Chutkan apparently had a similar background and faced with the amazing and fanciful lawsuit had no choice but to dismiss it as frivolous.
(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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
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 ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
In the Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies.
Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy. The jury found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from Defendant Carol Gardina and $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages from Defendant George Gardina.
THE APPEAL
Defendants ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
