Please have this Memorandum serve as a request for your committee to assist in the current mediation efforts between the FDIC and the Sweeney family which are ongoing in the U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with Judge David Mazzone acting as mediator. In particular, please be available to meet with members of our team, including the Right Reverend Bishop Mark Dyer and Massachusetts Senator Bruce Tarr in an effort to clarify the FDIC/RTC's misapplication of federal legislative statutory policy and law.
Thank you for your efforts in the past, including your hearings on this dispute of June 14, 1995. We look forward to assisting your committee with the continued work in an effort to gain answers to the atrocities we and all taxpayers have suffered at the hands of the individuals who ran ComFed and it's subsidiary companies as a criminal enterprise.
In addition, you will recall that many of these issues were also before the U.S. Senate Oversight Committee on January 31, 1995, and the U. S. House Small Business Committee on September 25, 1996.
Please go to our web page for more details. http://www.qui-tam.com (click on mediation)
Please consider the following:
NEW information has come to light in the unresolved dispute between the Sweeney family and the FDIC:
Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com
(click on "mediation")
SWEENEY MEDIATION BRIEF:
See the Table of Contents, the Full Text, and the Index of Exhibits.
The brief was submitted to Judge A. David Mazzone, the mediator, on September 12, 1997 at his request and contains all the facts and NEW EVIDENCE that has been discovered. We are waiting for the FDIC to submit their response in writing.
Here are some of the KEY FACTS and NEW EVIDENCE which demand be addressed, acknowledged, and explained by the FDIC.
1. Secret documents that the court had ordered "destroyed" have been obtained. These papers reveal that the government agencies, in their own bank examinations, knew as early as 1985, and again in 1988 and 1990 of the fraud going on at ComFed Bank citing specifically the same exact individuals who had harmed us. Although our government banking agencies were established with our tax dollars to regulate banks like ComFed when wrongdoing occurs, they did nothing about protecting us or the many other customers of ComFed Bank who were defrauded.
2. The Sweeney $4 million judgment was won against more than one defendant, namely ComFed Savings Bank and ComFed Mortgage Company, a subsidiary of the bank. The bank failed in 1990 and was taken over by the FDIC. It was recently learned through documents obtained that ComFed Mortgage Company was never taken over by the FDIC/RTC when ComFed Savings Bank failed. In fact, ComFed Mortgage Company, "operating wholly under state law," has been run by individuals in a private company in Columbus, Ohio. In addition, ComFed Mortgage Company is being run by officers of the FDIC and is presently located in the very same offices as the FDIC at 101 E. River Drive in Hartford, CT.
3. A settlement agreement, signed by an unidentified attorney of the RTC, literally lets the worst wrongdoer, James G. Baldini, the former CEO of ComFed Mortgage, off the hook for a measly $100,000 in cash and a promissory note for $185,000. In one year alone 1985 Baldini was paid a base salary of $360,000 and a bonus of $2,944,381, totaling $3,304,381, the following years his base salary remained at $360,000 but his bonus was capped at $800,000 in 1986, $1,300,000 in 1987 and $1,350,000 in 1988 respectively. On top of letting Baldini off with a clearly di minimis payment, the agreement purports to provide a "bar" to anyone suing him (it could be seen as an agreement by RTC/FDIC to indemnify him, too, but this would be outrageous). What is wrong with this picture? Total compensation to Baldini over four years was $7,834,381. When ComFed failed it cost the taxpayer a reported $828,000,000, yet the RTC settles for only $285,000. They sign a document called "The Compromised Settlement Agreement and Release" that was entered into on November 20, 1995, just 40 days BEFORE the RTC went out of business as of December 31, 1995.
4. Documents have been located that show that a massive ComFed loan servicing portfolio was sold to private interests, including Goldman Sachs, before the RTC became receiver (which would have been a wholly unlawful transfer). Current Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, was a partner at Goldman Sachs during this time.
5. Other documents have been located from FDIC that claim the note in the Sweeney case was passed in 1991 to either Ryland (now indicted), Potomac, or State Street Bank, any one or all of which should have deprived FDIC of any standing in this action.
6. The FDIC/RTC had a clear conflict of interest in their employment of Hanify & King who acted as counsel to ComFed prior to the bank's failure, including counsel to all ComFed defendants in the Sweeney cases. In addition, John Hanify of Hanify & King, had a clear conflict in representing all the ComFed Defendants, jointly, in the initial litigation (particularly when many of the top officials of ComFed Savings Bank were under criminal investigation already). He had an even worse conflict representing the RTC because the RTC was tasked with investigating the underlying bank failure on behalf of the U.S. government. The RTC's interest was thus clearly adverse to ComFed Savings Bank and the interests of ComFed Savings Bank were clearly adverse to those of ComFed Mortgage, ComFed Advisory, and Furey's interests were adverse to all the other defendants. Despite these clear conflict of interests , John Hanify, in two sworn affidavits, claimed that he represented the RTC/FDIC. Documents from the RTC/FDIC prove that John Hanify was not retained to represent the RTC/FDIC and never had a legal services agreement (required by the government) to represent the RTC/FDIC. These facts, coupled with Hanify's proven wrongdoing in removing this case, manifest clear intent to defraud, both the Sweeneys and the United States Government.
7. The FDIC/RTC have knowingly acted on a summary judgment order which was granted to ComFed Savings Bank, F.A. NOTE: ComFed F.A. was never a party defendant in the Sweeney action. Even though the FDIC's own records document that the U. S. District Court was in error in granting a summary judgment order to the wrong parties, the FDIC/RTC have not corrected their mistake. In fact, the FDIC/RTC knowingly have relied upon the flawed summary judgment order to further gain foreclosure orders, eviction orders, and U. S. Marshall possession orders from Judge Harrington of the U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. (see, FDIC/RTC admission that the Summary Judgment Order of April 14, 1992, "Motion to Substitute," filed in U. S. District Court, August 31, 1993, was granted to party defendants who were never substituted into the Sweeney case. Therefore, it is clear on the face of the FDIC/RTC's own documents, all orders granted by the U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts have been gained through known fraud. Respectfully Submitted,
John & Rhetta Sweeney
cc: The Right Reverend Mark Dyer
The Honorable Bruce Tarr
The Honorable A. David Mazzone
Andrew Hove, FDIC Chairman
Joseph H. Neely, FDIC Director
Eugene A. Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency
Nicholas P. Retsinas, OTS Chairman
Ms. Nancy McGillivray, U. S. Marshall Service