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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
