Notice of Findings
IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Filed in the 5th Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland   10 May 2005

C97-40661
In the Matter of Eugene Robert Zarwell v. The State of Maryland, et al,

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

           The above matter, "Eugene Robert Zarwell v. The State of Maryland, et al.", came up for appearance on November 21, 1997 in the 5th Circuit Court For Anne Arundel County, State of Maryland. 

          There was no appearance by or on behalf of The State of Maryland on the matter presented.  Maryland’s Attorneys General, J. Joseph Curran, Jr. in collusion with Chief Justice Robert M. Bell, Court of Appeals for Maryland, engaged a fraud on the court.

           A case substituted by the Attorneys General, represented as an appeal, entitled, “Eugene Robert Zarwell v. Diversified Information Systems, et al.”, was later confirmed dismissed in the Court of Special Appeals as not being filed or properly served. 

          Fact is that case dismissed never existed and when Writ of certiorari was presented to Judge Bell, he denied reconsideration of facts and pleadings in the case "Zarwell v The State, et al.", stating it was in not in the best interest of the State. 

NOTICE 

          This report is a recommendation.  The matter has been referred to the Secretary of State for Maryland, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Delegates for adjudication, with several pleadings to the Anne Arundel Circuit Court for administrative "Default" and "Summary of Damages". It has been interfered with by a third party illegally siezing evidence for destruction or distribution thus denying "due Process" - money was owed ("Due") through failure to appear or DEFAULT and "Process" was fraudulently covered up through government actions to decive various judges at all levels denying that which is Constitutionally due.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Attorneys General office and Chief Justice for failure to respond or appear at the Circuit Court.  The State of Maryland neither denied facts in this case, nor disputed amounts claimed in the matter of "Eugene Robert Zarwell v. The State of Maryland, et al.".

2.  Whether it is appropriate to deny claimant his claim with accruing penalties because of delayed Default due to rulings based upon a fraudulent representation of a totally unrelated action represented as an appeal that was never filed and cannot be located by any Judge on the Bench or clerks in any Maryland court.

Based on all proceedings herein, any Administrative Law Judge can assess these facts: 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                              Two judges, the Honorable Pamela North and Eugene Lerner, each ordered dismissed, actions regarding “Zarwell v. Diversified Information Systems et, al.”, without regard to the claim for damages before them.  Their actions were based upon motions from the Attorneys General requesting dismissal of "Zarwell v. Diversified", later identified as a fraudulent case;  docketed using unique case numbers of both a "Claim for Damages" and a "Request for Judicial Review" docketed by Anne Arundel County's Clerk of Court were different cases than that dismissed.

2.                              Both Judges, the Honorable James Cawood (23 October 1998), and Robert H. Heller (1 November 2000) declared; the case was neither an appeal combined with a claim, nor that an original filing of “Eugene Robert Zarwell v. Diversified Information Systems, et al.”, ever existed.

3.         Both Orders to Dismiss cited appropriately that “Zarwell v. Diversified Information Systems, et al.”, but case numbers used resulted in those orders fraudulently dismissing “Zarwell v. The State of Maryland, et al.”, and a request “For Judicial Review of the Decision of The Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, in the case of the Board of Appeals Decision 03446-BR-97 Unemployment Insurance Appeal No. 9710795.

4.         Respondent’s failure to appear on November 21, 1997 has resulted in a finding that Respondent is in default, that allegations contained in this Notice and Order must be accepted as true, and its proposed action must be upheld.

5.         Respondent did not appear on November 21, 1997, nor did anyone appear on its behalf.  Respondent made no prehearing request for a continuance, nor did it file a Notice of Appearance.

6.         Allegations of the claim, invoice of damages, and Order for Default Judgment and Summary are deemed proved and are incorporated into these Findings by reference (C97-40661 dated: 6 January 1998, 20 March 1998, 23 June 1998 and 23 March 2005).

Based on above Findings of Fact, any Administrative Law Judge must find as follows:

CONCLUSIONS

1.              The Administrative Law Judge in the 5^th Circuit Court or any Maryland court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Maryland Rules and Procedures.

2.              Any of the above Findings of Fact more properly termed Conclusions are hereby incorporated as such.

3.              The Respondent was given Fifty-two, timely and proper notices,  each month subsequent to Judge Heller’s findings that a wrongful case was dismissed by an order dismissing a fraudulent case never filed in this matter.

4.              Under Maryland rule 2-231, Respondent is in default as a result of its failure to appear on or before November 21, 1997.

5.              Under Maryland Rules; 2 – 424 & 2 – 501; , allegations and issues set out in this Notice of and Order for Default, Invoice of accrued claim and penalty, and previous Motions for Summary must be taken as true or deemed proved when a party defaults. (Failure factually to contradict facts recited in movant's affidavits constitutes an admission of those facts for purposes of the motion. Roe v Citizen's Nat'l Bank 32 Md. App 1, 358 A.2d 267 (1976).

6.              Based on facts set forth in this Notice and Order for Default, Invoice of accrued claim and penalty, and previous Orders for Summary, the Respondent (State of Maryland has violated Maryland Rules 2 – 424 & 2 - 501).

7.              It is appropriate to summarily award Default and damages to Eugene Robert Zarwell in accordance with previously stated rules.

8.              Disciplinary action against the Respondent is in the public interest within the meaning of Federal law prohibiting “Fraud on the Court”, “Obstruction of Justice” and “Collusion” consistent with felony convictions to be served by Attorneys General Curran and Justice Bell.

Based upon the above Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That Default be recognized, the Order for Summary in this matter be enforced; and that disciplinary action be taken against the Attorneys General and Chief Justice.

Dated this _____ day of _________2010.

                                                                      _______________________________  

                                 Administrative Law Judge       
5^th Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
County in the State of Maryland      

Current Invoice:  Sent to Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley to settle
Failure of State to enforce its own Law regarding Fraud on the Court by
former AG J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Father-in Law of O'Malley