In the United States District Court for Maryland                                                                                                             In the State of Maryland                  
In the Court of Federal Claims                  

Notice of Findings
IN THE UNITED STATES District Court for Maryland

FIled in The United States District Court for Maryland 18 July 2005

Civil No. WMN-05-1938 
In the Matter of Eugene Robert Zarwell v. King & Nordlinger

Notice of Findings
IN THE UNITED STATES District Court for Maryland

Civil No. WMN-05-1938 In the Matter of Eugene Robert Zarwell v. King & Nordlinger


                      Judgment in the matter, "Eugene Robert Zarwell v. King & Nordlinger is pending “Writ of Certiorari” in U.S. Supreme Court for third party interference with Constitutional “Due Process” after reviewing evidence discovered from review of an Anne Arundel County Police report on August 2, 2006 of several acts of fraudulent behavior, obstruction of justice and abuse of power as an officer of the court on the part of King & Nordlinger partner Lynn Perry Parker.

She fraudulently represented her law firm’s role and client to deceive Plaintiff, Eugene R. Zarwell (Zarwell), into believing there was money owed to a Virginia Corporation that neither existed in a referenced time nor was ever contracted to as a coverup to a July 7, 2004 illegally siezure of evidence in several cases for extortion purposes 10 days before a judge ruled agianst her 

Costa, King & Nordlinger, a Virginia Collection agency, filed a summons in Prince George’s County District claiming a $17,987 debt owed to an unknown entity incorporated as Annapolis Hospitalities with a Virginia address, 211 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22201 and later changed to 200A Monroe Street, Suite 210, Rockville, MD 20850 before claiming it was not engaged in Interstate Commerce.

1.      It requested and was granted dismissal its claim in Prince George’s county on July 27, 2004.

2.      It questioned whether goods left at Country Inn and Suites existed where management stated “there was no billing outstanding and they would return the goods when ownership was proven.

3.      King & Nordlinger, not knowing if goods existed, claimed to control those goods after being informed that Plaintiff, Zarwell, needed documents of evidence in two high profile cases contained in his luggage and boxes stored there during two extended business trips to Australia.

            Zarwell filed a detinue requesting goods be returned since no debt was proven to which King & Nordlinger answered with a counter claim for what they thought would be a judgment in favor of plaintiff, Zarwell.  Judge Leo Green, Jr. granted judgment to King & Nordlinger for $  .00 (zero) dollars Judgment Principal; $ .00 Pre-Judgment Interest; $ .00 Costs; $ .00 Other amounts; and $ .00 Attorney’s Fees.

King & Nordlinger fabricated from that judgment a poorly rendered copy claiming $15,000 and circulated it to every county District Court in Maryland as harassment.

Zarwell filed a claim for damages under Title 15, Debt Collection in the United States District Court for Maryland due to several violations including but not limited to:

Section 1692e. – False or misleading representations – failure to disclose real parties involved.

Section 1692g. – Validation of debts – failure to provide proof of debt and withholding evidence of payoffs.

Section 1692j. – Furnishing certain deceptive forms – submitted an online definition of a Hotel Lien from instead of an enacted lien that required certain procedures.

Section 1692k. – Civil Liability – failing to comply to any provision of Subchapter V with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of actual damages sustained as a result of such failure.

Zarwell seeks damages from obstruction of justice through withholding of evidence in each of two cases; (1) Zarwell v. Defense Department - $1 million, and (2) Zarwell v. State of Maryland - $138 million; plus damages accruing from false judgment distribution to the several Maryland District Courts in an amount of $15,000 per county.

Based upon all the proceedings herein, any administrative Law Judge can make the following:


1.                  Lynn Perry Parker, partner in King & Nordlinger misrepresented and withheld evidence in an unsubstantiated claim for debt payment.

2.                  Judge Thurman H. Rhodes dismissed her case on July 27, 2004.

3.                  On August 3, 2004 Country Inn & Suites declared that no monies were owing and goods would be returned upon proof of ownership.

4.                  Lynn Perry Parker on behalf of King & Nordlinger  - no longer Costa, King & Nordlinger representing Porten and Companies, an alias for Annapolis Hospitalities now wanted to counter any claim of ownership requested $20,000 or would return goods, not in their possession for $10,000 pre-trial settlement, even though they dropped their original claim and that case was dismissed.

5.                  Zarwell filed detinue on November 12, 2004 seeking goods be returned to recapture evidence in each of two previously mentioned pending decisions.

6.                  Lynn Perry Parker of King & Nordlinger filed a counter claim to a judgment of $ .00 asking for $15,000 that was not ratified in Prince George’s County District Court.

7.                  Zarwell filed in The United States District Court for Maryland on July 18, 2005 under Title 15, Section 1692k, - Civil Liability, (d) Jurisdiction – n action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter (V) may be brought in any appropriate United States district Court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs (violation occurred on June 30, 2005 when Judge Green denied a motion to seek remedies for losses in Prince George’s County District Court where he had no jurisdiction to decide a matter on that magnitude.



·                That Ms. Lynn Perry Parker be disbarred and King & Nordlinger be disenfranchised from practicing law in the State of Maryland or surrounding states.

 ·       That as a third party interloper into several high dollar disputes over what was due Plaintiff for services rendered and in DEFAULT by a State of Maryland fraud on the court that "due" process from a Constitutional definition was denied and as such King & Nordlinger be ordered to pay those losses due. 

·                That full restitution be made to Zarwell as requested in amount of $345,104,953.85 and/or return of goods stored in good faith at Country Inn & Suites; plus accrued losses due to dispatch of fraudulent judgments to the several Maryland District Courts in amount of each at $15,000.


Dated this ______ day of _________2005.



                                 Administrative Law Judge

Federal District Court        

Reported:  Restitution be made in amount of approximately $350 Million