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.