Attorney at Law
200 Reynolds St.
Brundidge, AL 36010
Telephone: (334) 735-9050
U.S. Federal Judge A. David Mazzone
20th Floor, Federal Court House
90 Devonshire Street
Boston, MA 02109
By Fax to: (617) 223-4127
In re: FDIC v. Sweeney
Dear Judge Mazzone:
I have been kept apprised of the Sweeney situation by second hand reports and information from the Sweeneys since neither your office nor Joe Shea, the FDIC's attorney, has seen fit to copy correspondence to me, even though I appeared at two mediation sessions with the Sweeneys and everyone concerned knew the Sweeneys were represented by counsel; it is equally obvious that there are clear duties regarding contact directly with a party represented by counsel which are simply being ignored.
We undertook a rather monumental effort to prepare a summary that sets forth the issues, which are not refuted in any manner by the September letter of Joe Shea, they are simply ignored or misstated throughout.
In September, at the mediation meeting attended by Mr. and Mrs. Sweeney, Faith Sweeney and myself, you suggested that two independent third parties assess the Sweeney's situation and that these parties would then present their findings directly to the FDIC and to the Sweeneys in a follow up mediation session. You suggested Massachusetts Senator Bruce Tarr and Bishop Mark Dyer as the independent parties. You also requested that they meet the following month with Faith Sweeney, the Sweeney's daughter, instead of with either me or Mrs. Sweeney. While this appeared to be an effort to have the Sweeneys' case presented by the person who was least familiar with it, the Sweeneys agreed nonetheless, in order to advance the mediation.
Faith Sweeney did meet with Bishop Dyer and with State Senator Bruce Tarr and you in October. Both Tarr and Dyer, two independent, honorable men of unquestionable good character, have advised you of their findings, which are to the effect that the FDIC's posture is predicated upon an order they obtained only through fraudulent conduct of their own attorney and his predecessor. They do not recommend the Sweeneys pay anything. In fact, the Sweeneys are entitled to the judgment they won of $4 million.
Abruptly, instead of having a third meeting, whereby these men would present their findings to the FDIC, your posture became one of outright endorsement of the FDIC's posture, including an assertion that Joe Shea is a "zealous advocate." Joe Shea is a liar who has engaged in and endorsed fraud. That is not "zealous advocacy" it is a crime. The FDIC's posture is unsupported and insupportable, other than by ratification of fraud.
Your change in posture occurred sometime after the September meeting, approximately around September 18, when you received a letter from Joe Shea which you did not disclose to anyone at the subsequent meeting (of which I have a copy only because it was forwarded to me by the Sweeneys after they received it in November). At approximately the same time as you had an abrupt change of posture, my son disappeared, September 19, and has not been seen since.
I met with Faith Sweeney last week in an impromptu meeting in Montgomery that resulted when she was driving through Alabama and phoned me to have dinner with her in an hour. During this dinner, we were clearly under surveillance at all times. The only way anyone could have learned of this meeting was through a tap on my phone or by following Faith herself. It is more than a little obvious that we are dealing with thugs in this case. It has been obvious for some time that it will take someone with both integrity and a backbone, to deal with these tactics. I had great hopes this would be yourself.
Then I learn that you have made no effort to schedule the meeting of these independent persons with the FDIC or the Sweeneys and have simply sat on this case subsequently. In a recent letter, you have stated that unless the Sweeneys are essentially ready to adopt the FDIC's posture, which is to pay the FDIC either $1,000,000 or $2,000,000, depending on which version the FDIC is espousing on any given day, then you see no reason to continue. The Sweeneys are more than willing to pay the underlying mortgage loan from the $4 million judgment they won. Thus, the issue has never been the Sweeney's unwillingness to pay, but the FDIC's fraud and refusal to pay.
Not incoincidentally, this supposed mediation process and your assertion that you would "hold the file" until December 19, immediately preceding the date that the local school, near the Sweeney property, gets out for Christmas break -- thereby indicating that the entire "mediation" was nothing but a stall process, to create the appearance of reasonable conduct, until the time U.S. Marshals and any other federal agency could be freely set loose on the Sweeneys and not have to worry about the school children near by.
You have abandoned your ethical duties to the people of the United States, your sworn oath of office, and any pretense of propriety, as is made obvious by your statement that you will not mention what you have learned to the Court of Appeals owing to "confidentiality." There is no duty of "confidentiality" when the effect is to cover up criminal conduct. It is called "aiding and abetting." In fact, you have numerous duties to the contrary, to fidelity and ethics, not to suborn perjury, not to allow a fraud to be perpetrated on a court, and above all, to do justice.
At this point, we request you take the following action, all of which is clearly within your power, authority and consistent with your duties as a federal judge:
1. The suggestion that marshals could legitimately be used in this case is preposterous. Any use of the marshals will be blatantly illegal, "under color of law" ("we have an order") because the federal government never had any jurisdiction and knows it. These proceedings have been a mockery.
2. Senator Tarr, Bishop Dyer, Linda Thompson, and the
Sweeney family all are willing to meet with the Board of Directors of the FDIC in Washington, D.C.
3. You are requested to join Senator Tarr in his referrals of these matters for criminal investigation by the local District Attorney, and to federal, state, and legislative agencies. It is abundantly clear that the facts of this case and the criminal conduct of these attorneys and Judge Harrington should be investigated.
4. Alert the Court of Appeals that on the basis of manifest injustice, Judge Harrington should be removed from the case and it should be remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the State court based on lack of jurisdiction and authority ab initio.
Please favor me with the courtesy of a response.
If you do intend to lift the stay, I would appreciate your informing Senator Bruce Tarr, Bishop Dyer and myself beforehand.