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