Moscow, Russia (TEH) – The Nikulinsky Court of Moscow has declined to accept a claim from Oleg Eidelstein, who asserts that he is the illegitimate son of the late Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Eidelstein’s demand to be officially recognized as the son of the founder of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) has been met with legal resistance, casting a shadow over his potential inheritance claims.
Oleg Eidelstein, 36, is reportedly seeking to secure his share of the inheritance left by the prominent politician. To achieve this, he needs the court to officially recognize him as Zhirinovsky’s son. However, the court’s refusal to accept the claim may be due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide the necessary documents or because the claim itself falls outside the jurisdiction of this particular court, either on a territorial or legal basis.
Eidelstein’s claim is rooted in his assertion that his mother encountered Zhirinovsky during a business trip to Cuba. Initially, Eidelstein carried the surname Gazdarov, named after his mother. The connection between Eidelstein and Zhirinovsky has been a subject of public interest and speculation, but the court’s recent decision adds a new layer of complexity to the unfolding drama.
Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky, the charismatic and often controversial leader of the LDPR, passed away at the age of 75 on April 6, 2022. Before his death, the politician had been battling the coronavirus. Zhirinovsky’s legacy in Russian politics is marked by his fiery rhetoric and unconventional approach, and his death has left a void in the political landscape.
Zhirinovsky left behind three children: Igor Lebedev (since 2021 known as David Garcia), Oleg Eidelstein, and daughter Anastasia Botsan-Kharchenko. The inheritance issue has brought attention to the private life of a man who was often in the public eye, and the legal battle may continue to unfold in the coming months.
The case highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding inheritance rights, particularly in high-profile cases involving public figures. It also raises questions about the legal recognition of familial relationships and the challenges faced by those seeking to establish their lineage in the eyes of the law.
As the legal proceedings continue, the public’s interest in the case is likely to grow, with many keen to understand the intricacies of the relationship between Eidelstein and the late politician. The court’s decision not to accept Eidelstein’s claim is a significant development, but it may not be the final word on this complex and deeply personal matter.
