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 Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
