Costly Fraud
Perpetrated in Maryland
Involves Top levels,
Judiciary as “Normal”
Annapolis, Md. (03/06/2002) – Shocking results reveal
“fraud on the Court” by the State in a cover-up
perpetrated by the Office of the
Attorney General to avoid settling a huge claim against the State for
tampering
with evidence, damages, and
penalties without due process. There is no Maryland Statute of Limitations on fraud cases;
and there is no Federal Statute.
Attorney General J.Jospeh Curran, Jr. with various assistant attorney generals undersigned al documents
submitted by the State to the courts.
Although the amount was relatively small in the early stages, the
State’s ineptness in it’s defense has caused a Default dating back
to November 21, 1997 with interest accruing at $23 per minute.
Truth of the matter is that the cover-up activities have created
a worsening situation that cannot go unnoticed for much longer.
Events leading up to the cover-up now overshadowed by the State’s
inability to follow its own rules.
Through its wisdom it enjoined the Judiciary in collusion
while two of its departments are conjoined in damages.
It no longer is a case of truth vs. fabrication but one of
procedure in that the State failed to appear. Originally, the Petitioner had asked the State to assist in collection of owed monies from and employer.
Briefly, a claim for damages was filed when the State’s
Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation falsified a hearing
examiner’s report by removing critical documents.
This is something the Attorney General’s office considers
normal procedure as they have in five or six unrelated cases but pending
decisions from the Judiciary.
In this case, when the deadline was missed, the State's assistant Attorney General Andrew D. Auerbach decided to
offer a motion to dismiss a case never field – a case he captioned as an "appeal" that named a third party company, Diversified Information Systems.
In an effort to restart the calendar the Attorney General, J.
Joseph Curran, had The
Honorable James Cawood, Judge in the 5th
Circuit Court, file a memoranda-requesting clarification?
He wrote instructions stating that “an appeal and claim for
damages could not be contained in the same petition or filing”.
He was assured it was not the case.
He withdrew his memoranda for clarification, stating that the
case filed “appeared to be a claim for damages.”
Thus, no “restart” was available to the calendar for the
Attorney General.
The Honorable Pamela
North, Judge at the Fifth Circuit Court
dismissed the “appeal” without realizing that a case before her was
for a “Judicial Review”, C97-42004 filed October 27, 1997, of a DLLR hearing. This is the
first step in filing an appeal case.
The petitioner filed a motion for Reconsideration to address the
error by the court.
The
Attorney General requested an insurance claim, of which it was not; be submitted (a
letter dated January 6th, 1998) to the Honorable Louis
Goldstein, Comptroller. As
expected it was denied.
In
a subsequent filing to the court, questioned as to relevance of an insurance claim to the case because of alleged “Fraud on
the Court” by the Department and the Attorney General.
Insurance
Division spokesperson, Mark Clabaugh, discounted the seriousness of the
matter. He attempted to discard it as a denied claim
against the State’s insurance carrier.
Within a month, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss
the same appeal action in the “claim for damages” case (C97-40661,
filed September 11, 1999). This
time, The
Honorable Eugene Lerner, judge at the 5th
Circuit Court, heard the motion for dismissal.
He ignored a previous motion for summary judgment by taking the
matter under advisement and sitting on it for several weeks. He released his decision more than 16 days beyond that 10-day
deadline for filing reconsiderations.
His "Order to Dismiss" named Diversified
Information as defendent and did not address the matter of "Zarwell v. THe State of Maryland".
His remark when questioned was, “Don’t bother me; I have too many
cases to review all of them in a timely manner”, or something like
that. A motion for
reconsideration was filed and denied.
Subsequently, Plaintiff
filed the case docketed in the Special Court of
Appeals as #1797 on June 23, 1998 where dismissal of the bogus case was
affirmed in an opinion written by Justice
Raymond Thieme, stating that the “appeal
case” was not served properly. "It was never a case."
The three
Justices, The Honorable Raymond Thieme, Jr.; The Honorable James Kenny,
and The Honorable Andrew Sonner, denied reconsideration when a redirect
was filed alerting them to the error.
Plaintiff then moved "The Claim for DAmages" to the Court of Appeals in a Writ of
Certiorari, #439 filed on September 29, 1999 was denied by Chief
Justice Robert C. Murphy. This too, was questioned in a motion for reconsideration before
the case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court #99-9277 on March 10, 2000
and to the Justice Department for charges of “Fraud on the Court” by
the Maryland Attorney General, “Collusion” with the various Judges
and Justices.
“Obstruction
of Justice” perpetrated by Secretary Gene Conti, John O'Connor
at DLLR & Secretary Linda
Fox at DHR involved, the Attorney
General, and the Treasurer of
Maryland, Richard N. Dixon, for delaying
resolve through cover up activities.
At direction from the Justice Department the case was further
addressed through letters to the Governor Parris Geledenning’s office in December 1999 and
one in January 2001to both the President
of the Senate, Thomas V. Mike
Miller, and The speaker of the House of
Delegates, Casper Taylor alerting the legislature through of the situation regarding the charges and a
claim for damages.
A
petition to the Maryland Judiciary Disabilities Commission was filed
January 15, 2001 asking for a review of the Judges and Justice’s
decisions. As
expected the Governor’s office didn’t understand the letter and
suggested, “for legal advice an attorney should be sought”.
They were later informed that was not necessary.
The letter was merely to inform them of the situation - an alert
to ascertain their position on the charges so; the charges could go
forward to the Federal Department of Justice.
The
disabilities commission wrote back indicating the actions and decisions
of the Judges and Justices was considered normal, and that they did not
violate their role in dismissing a case that was never filed.
That reaction was anticipated, but a necessary step before taking
the case to the Justice Department. HOwever, both judges and all four justices agreed that the "Appeal" was dismissed and did not address the default on the "Claim".
"So, they did cover their actions.
It was further exacerbated when in May 2001
the Clerk of the Circuit Court , Robert Duckworth, could not produce the original pleading in the matter
that was dismissed and suggested that the request be submitted to Judge
Robert Heller to assist. Judge
Heller wrote back in June 2001 that no original pleading could be found
because the original pleading never mentioned the defendant, a bankrupt
Maryland Company that had nothing to do with the damages against the
State.
The
“kicker” – the principle of $34 million doubled to $69 million by conjoining two Departments’ harassment and false accusations.
Interest at the State’s penalty levels of 10% is approaching
close to $122 million - just one good lottery win.
The matter has been addressed in monthly invoices demanding payment on teh default since Judge Heller's declaration.
The accompanying CD contains all documents submitted to the courts in this case in a virtual file cabinet organizing the case filings by
case-caption since the Attorney General adopted the "Claims" docket number for his fraudulent action. All relevant references, exhibits, and evidence are presented in MS-DOC, graphics-JPG/TIFF, or adobe-PDF
formats. Nine three-ring binders contain all originals including court transcripts and records generated during this action.
-30-