July 9, 1997
For a history of this siege, see: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on summary)
We are currently in day 37 of the threatened imminent seizure of our property by armed federal agents at the request of the FDIC's Acting Chairman Andrew Hove, in Washington, D.C., and the FDIC's attorney Joseph Shea, from the firm of Nutter, McClennen and Fish in Boston.
We've remained on this property for 37 days, unable to leave our home due to the threat of possible seizure of our property by armed federal agents. We are terrified by this possibility. Even though everyone on our property is unarmed, in light of past confrontations between citizens and various federal agencies which have resulted in many deaths, we have no reason to expect that they would treat us any differently, particularly since Joe Shea has repeatedly implied that our home will be entered at any time, in efforts to terrorize us into leaving.
We are also afraid to leave our property as Andrew Hove, the acting chairman of FDIC, has said he will consider "offers" from "other purchasers" (see http://www.qui-tam.com/Hove.htm -letter from Hove dated June 30, 1997. Considering how they pulled off the last "auction" to "purchase" our property (see Background Section) we have good reason to be worried.
When we received a copy of this letter from the FDIC, our attorney contacted the FDIC on July 2, and asked them to put any offer they cared to make or claimed to have made in writing. Joe Shea, the FDIC's attorney, refused. Instead, Shea demanded a settlement proposal from us, however, he continued to threaten us with U.S. Marshals, demanding that we leave our home in the meantime. He refused to withdraw the threat of U.S. Marshals while negotiations are in progress.
We have notified local and federal authorities, including the US Marshals Service that we are presently attempting to reach an amicable agreement with the FDIC and until a settlement is reached, we are engaged in the "unarmed and peaceful occupation of our property." The Boston Globe reported on July 5, 1997 that the head of the US Marshals Service, Ms. McGillivray, stated: "We still have the order but we're not going to go in while mediation is going on."
We have sent our settlement proposal to Secretary Robert Rubin of the US Treasury who has jurisdiction over the FDIC as well as a copy to the FDIC's attorney Joe Shea. Go To http://www.qui-tam.com (click on Sweeney letter to Secretary Rubin, July 3 1997)
As stated in this proposal of July 3, 1997, once the FDIC honors its obligation to pay us the $4 million judgment we were awarded by the Massachusetts Court, we will pay back the Federally-insured loan we borrowed as the jury found, and we will reimburse the FDIC for any property taxes paid by the FDIC when the illegal auction of our property was held in November, 1994. In addition we propose to work with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Treasury to recover the $ 828 Million dollars lost by the now defunct ComFed Bank. We also propose to assist the Department of Justice in Criminal Prosecutions against ComFed and other government officials that committed fraud against us and all tax payers. Finally, we propose to work with the U.S. Congress in hearings that will need to be held to impeach judges who have committed fraud against us and all taxpayers.
In light of the FDIC's deceit in the past, including its false representations to the public and the media, and the deceit of its attorney in claiming to be negotiating in good faith, only to sell our house from under us, and the latest claims by FDIC that they have made offers to us, while they refuse to put any of their offers in writing, we have asked that the FDIC submit a consent order for the court's signature staying any order to evict us for an agreed amount of time and to forward a copy to the US Marshal's Office (which our counsel has informed us is a simple procedure) so that we can personally be present to engage in settlement negotiations. The FDIC has REFUSED to do this.
FDIC now demands we leave our home because we have "refused to negotiate" and because we have "caused delays." It is clear the FDIC has never had any intentions to negotiate with us in any way other than heavy-handed thug tactics and threats.
It has also become clear that Chairman Hove is part of the problem shown by correspondence which evidences his involvement with our dispute as far back as November of 1992. Go To http://www.qui-tam.com
Although the FDIC has stated in the media that they are willing to work with us, acting FDIC Chairman Hove and the FDIC's attorney, Joe Shea of Nutter McClennen and Fish of Boston, continue to cover up for the white-collar ComFed criminals and their known fraud while simultaneously attacking us. Go To http://www.qui-tam.com (click on settlement-Hove, letter of June 30, 1997)
We have received word yesterday, July 8, 1997 from our counsel that the FDIC has flatly rejected the proposal it demanded from us last week, and the FDIC has submitted no counter-proposal and continues to refuse to put any of its so-called settlement offers in writing and further dictates that we must leave our property first before they will entertain any discussions. However, we are currently waiting for a response from Secretary Rubin.
Rhetta & John Sweeney
24 Meyer Lane
Hamilton, MA 01982
July 9, 1997
Background: In 1987, we borrowed an initial amount of 1.6 million dollars against our property from ComFed Savings and Loan for the purpose of developing our property into a subdivision. Once we satisfied various provisions of the contract for the loan, ComFed was to loan us additional money to complete the development, but refused and declared our loan in default, in order to seize the property, which by this time was worth much more than the loan value due to our initial improvements. ComFed sued for foreclosure and we counter-sued for unfair and deceptive practices and intentional infliction of emotional distress in Massachusetts State Court. The findings of the court were as follows:
Jury verdict on counterclaim on promissory note with interest: $2,069,580.33
Sub-total Count IX 315,000.00
Count VIII Specific Damages
--interest to which ComFed not
entitled since c.93A notice of 6/6/89
(19 mos. @ $20,666.70) 392,667.30
--punitive doubling of above item: $392,667.30
--damages for closing fees of ComFed $79,651.92
--punitive doubling of above item $79,651.92
--loss of opportunity to develop property $1,009,964.00
--punitive doubling of above item $1,009,964.00
--interest and fees on $65,000 loan to pay interest arrearages,
induced to obtain additional financing commitment $11,455.00
--punitive trebling of above item $22,910.00
Sub-total Count VIII $2,998,931.44
Sub-totals Count VIII & IX $3,313,931.44
Accrued interest from date of filing on Count VIII from April 14, 1989 $628,265.00
Attorneys fees and costs: $97,704.00
Totals: $4,039,900.44 $2,069,580.33
While the State Judge was writing her 45 page decision, ComFed was taken over by the Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC) due to fraud by ComFed officers. The very same day that Judge Izzo entered her decision ComFed's Attorney, John Hanify, went to the Courthouse and literally took the entire court file, including her judgment, to his office and concealed it there for 28 days. In the meantime, he wrote up papers in which he claimed that the case should be removed to a federal court since the RTC had taken ComFed over. We did not learn of any of this until after the 30 day deadline required by the court to protest the removal had already passed, all because Hanify was concealing the $4 million dollar judgment in his offices.
As a result, Federal Judge Edward Harrington, who was assigned the case, declared that we had missed a thirty day deadline to remand (send the case) back to state court. John Hanify, still representing the RTC, then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in January, 1992 stating in their Memorandum of Law in support of their motions—the Federal judge can adopt the judgment prepared by the state judge, and as they put it, there is "no need to reinvent the wheel" by retrying the case.
After a hearing (approximately one hour) on April 2, 1992 Judge Harrington found as follows:
Judge Harrington in his order of April 14, 1992 granted summary judgment in favor of RTC finding as follows:
the jury findings on the note for $2,069,580.33
the jury findings for emotional distress in favor of Rhetta Sweeney $65,000.00
Judge Harrington then threw out the state court findings which totaled $3,411,635.44 (minus the $65,000.) for emotional distress)
JUDGE HARRINGTON'S LOGIC:
THERE IS A JURY VERDICT--but
THERE ISN'T A STATE JUDGE VERDICT--and
THERE ISN'T A STATE COURT JUDGMENT, but
THE JURY VERDICT STANDS, which only comes in with the state court judgment UNDERSTAND– THESE ARE NOT TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS – THE JURY VERDICT IS ONLY ENTERED ON THE STATE COURT RECORD WITH JUDGE IZZO'S JUDGMENT FILED ON JANUARY 30, 1991 IN MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT.
Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on $4 million judgment).
Judge Harrington then, by order of April 28, 1992, expunged (threw out) the whole state court judgment and held it under seal in the federal court.
Furthermore, when we were supposedly in good faith negotiations with RTC's lawyer in November, 1994, Joseph Shea, of Nutter, McClennen and Fish who at that time was RTC's attorney, waited until we went out of town over Thanksgiving to visit our daughters and literally held an "auction" of our property, using $789,000 of taxpayer funds to buy it for the RTC, stating "the RTC is also the highest bidder at a foreclosure auction." Shea later went to work for FDIC, who took over from the RTC when they were closed December, 1995. The FDIC now insists that we must vacate our house or they will send in armed federal Marshals to forcibly evict us.
The U.S. government refuses to pay the judgment we won in state court and refuses to leave us alone. Freedom of Information Act reports have produced documents which detail the FDIC/RTC have spent well in excess of $1,000,000 in legal fees alone (tax dollars) to the law firms of Hanify & King; Ropes & Gray; and Nutter, McClennen & Fish after the state court had detailed the known fraud we had suffered because of violations committed by the individuals who ran ComFed as a criminal enterprise. Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on U. S. Senate Testimony of Rhetta Sweeney and Appendix tab T, U, V)
The Hamilton Town Planning Board has requested—through the office of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy—an investigation into the known fraud by the Inspector General of the US Treasury. Numerous Congressmen have made inquiries and conducted hearings on this matter. Congressional members that include the Secretary of Defense Cohen and Senator John Kerry are on the Congressional Record voicing their concerns about the frauds that have been committed against us by the U.S. government.
Why is the FDIC attacking us and covering up for white-collar criminals who cost the taxpayers over $828,000,000 when the Federally-insured bank, ComFed, failed due to its officer's fraud. Why have the RTC and FDIC's attorneys been allowed to get away with clear, obvious fraud -- taking Court records and keeping them in a private office, and selling our house to the RTC at an "auction" after preventing us from protesting the disappearance of the State Court records?
Our state court judgment proved the fraud violations committed by the individuals who ran ComFed as a criminal enterprise. Go To http://www.qui-tam.com (click on ComFed)
We are currently requesting that every American contact their Congressional Representatives and demand that the US Senate Banking Committee call immediate emergency hearings, and exercise their subpoena power by calling Chairman Hove, attorney Shea and attorney Hanify to answer these questions.
We have done nothing wrong. We have broken no laws. A Massachusetts Judge found that we were brutally harmed by ComFed. The Government agreed that ComFed was a criminal enterprise and shut them down for fraudulent banking practices, yet the government now terrorizes our family, rather than pay the judgment or admit to any wrong doing. WHY?
Rhetta & John Sweeney
24 Meyer Lane
Hamilton, MA 01982
These documents are available in Adobe format. If you do not have the reader you can go to this site to obtain the free reader:
Boston Globe article dated February 26, 1991 168 k
"Ex-ComFed customers win $4m 'lender-liability suit' "
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article date March 11, 1991 476 k
"Lender Ruling May Be A First in The U. S."