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 ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
