Post number 5326
See the video at https://rumble.com/v78l8tq-abuse-of-process-and-use-of-ai-upsets-usdc-for-washington-dc.html and at https://youtu.be/_POUCvB9WYc
International Litigation Unfounded
In Zavadovsky v. Republic of Austria, et al., Civil Action No. 25‑1008 (RC)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Judge Rudolph Contreras
Decided March 31, 2026 concerning allegations that in 2021, Austrian authorities investigated Plaintiffs based on testimony concerning Plaintiffs’ alleged tax and insurance fraud. searched their Austrian property, and seized assets.
Plaintiffs claimed the investigation was false and abusive. After unsuccessfully litigating related claims in multiple state and federal courts, Plaintiffs filed the present action alleging a sweeping transnational conspiracy among Austrian officials, U.S. government employees, and private attorneys.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for conversion, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and civil RICO/RICO conspiracy, and sought over $10 million in damages, return of seized property, and broad injunctive relief. Numerous motions to dismiss, motions to strike, sanctions motions, and default motions were pending.
The Parties
Plaintiffs: Boris Zavadovsky and Elena Dvoinik, pro se U.S. citizens residing in Florida.
Defendants:
Austrian Defendants – Republic of Austria, Austrian ministries, and the Austrian Embassy.
Attorney Defendants – U.S. attorneys Elke Rolff and Dale Webner (former counsel to Austrian parties).
Federal Defendants – DOJ attorneys, a DOJ employee, and a Secret Service official.
Issues
Whether Plaintiffs’ claims against Attorney Defendants are barred by res judicata or fail to state a claim.
Whether the Court has subject‑matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or standing over claims against Federal Defendants.
Whether Plaintiffs properly effected service of process on Austrian Defendants under the FSIA.
Whether defaults entered against Austrian Defendants should be set aside.
Holding
All claims against Attorney Defendants and Federal Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.
Service on Austrian Defendants was quashed and entries of default were vacated; Plaintiffs were granted limited leave to re‑serve Austria through diplomatic channels.
Nearly all Plaintiffs’ pending motions were denied.
Reasoning
Attorney Defendants: Plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same nucleus of facts as prior Florida state and federal cases that were dismissed on the merits; thus, res judicata barred relitigation. Independently, Plaintiffs failed to plead plausible claims for conversion, defamation (barred by judicial proceedings privilege and time‑barred), IIED (no extreme and outrageous conduct), or RICO (conclusory conspiracy theories based on litigation conduct).
Federal Defendants: The United States properly substituted itself under the Westfall Act. Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA, depriving the Court of jurisdiction over the conversion claim. Plaintiffs’ RICO claims were deemed patently insubstantial and “essentially fictitious,” defeating subject‑matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also lacked standing, failed to establish personal jurisdiction over one defendant, and did not rebut Westfall certification.
Austrian Defendants: Plaintiffs attempted service by mail under FSIA §1608(a)(3), but Austria has objected to mail service under the Hague Service Convention. Strict compliance with FSIA was required; proper service must proceed through diplomatic channels under §1608(a)(4). Because service was defective, defaults could not stand and were set aside for good cause.
DISPOSITION
Motions to dismiss by Attorney and Federal Defendants GRANTED.
Austrian Defendants’ motion to quash service and set aside defaults GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ remaining motions DENIED.
Plaintiffs may re‑serve Austrian Defendants via diplomatic channels by June 30, 2026.
NOTES
The Court admonished Plaintiffs for citing nonexistent cases and misleading authorities, warned of potential Rule 11 sanctions, and cautioned against repetitive or frivolous litigation, including possible pre‑filing restrictions.
ZALMA OPINION
The Plaintiffs, upset that the Republic of Austria investigated the plaintiffs for criminal conduct including insurance fraud they sued the Republic seeking various kinds of damages including RICO damages in the USDC for Washington DC only to have their case dismissed because it was decided previously in a different jurisdiction, failed to properly serve the Republic and used Artificial Intelligence which created false and imaginary authorities. Although no one likes to be accused of fraud if they think the charges are false they need to file a clear and unambiguous law suit understandable by the court and properly serve the defendants. The plaintiff failed on all of those issues and found their case dismissed. The Court gave the plaintiffs the right to properly serve the Austrian defendant.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at https://rumble.com/v79hhg6-admit-to-crime-and-be-ready-to-do-the-time.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
