Please consider the following statements by Congressional and
town leaders detailing the known fraud the Sweeneys suffered because
of violations committed by ComFed Savings Bank and continued mistreatment
by federal agencies. It is now May, 1997 and the FDIC are seeking to
seize the Sweeney property using federal court orders which were gained
through fraud upon the court. Now, the FDIC has gained further federal
orders authorizing U.S. Marshals to physically remove the Sweeneys from
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Former U. S. Senator of Maine
Hearing Before the Subcommittee On Oversight of Government
Management and the District of Columbia of the Committee on
Governmental Affairs United States Senate - One Hundred and
Fourth Congress, First Session, January 31, 1995.
And the facts are that the Sweeneys were
mistreated, they were fraudulently deceived. They
were entitled to in excess of a three-plus million-
dollar award, (See p.46)
. . . . the judge (state court) ruled on a consumer
fraud statute. She found under a consumer fraud
statute that there was in fact a violation. (See
I spoke with the court yesterday, . . . .the court
advised me that the attorney for the bank, the
same attorney with the law firm that was hired by
the RTC to represent it, inquired on a frequent if
not daily basis when that decision was going to be
handed down. . . .and unbeknownst to the court,
the attorney for the RTC at that point physically
removed the documents from the court and took
possession of them for some 25 days, never
notifying the court that he had possession. (See
So this was a pattern, it seemed to me of
fraudulent misrepresentations of the bank. (See
Hearing Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs United States Senate - One Hundred Fourth Congress,
First Session, June 14, 1996
Senator Cohen, Testimony before Chairman
D’Amato. . . . .
This, I think, is one of the most egregious cases I
have seen in my years in the Senate and in the
House, whereby a couple who is innocent of any
wrong doing, who had been the victims of
fraudulent misrepresentation are then victimized a
second time by a government agency. And, by the
way, I spoke with the presiding judge in that case.
She advised me that several of the loan officers
were in fact indicted and convicted of fraud. (See
Chairman D’Amato . . . . .
It seems very evident to me that the Sweeneys were
victimized, twice, first by the fraudulent conduct
by the bank which lead to a cash award in state
court and then by the federal government,. . . . .
Senator John Kerry. . . .
Here, you had, indeed, a fraud, but it was a fraud
perpetrated on the Sweeneys by ComFed, the
bank. . . .(See p.8)
Senator Faircloth. . .
But why did the RTC hire the same law firm the
bank used to sue the Sweeneys? Since the bank
had been found by State court to be guilty of
fraud, would you not think there would be a
conflict by going back and hiring the same law
firm? (See p.26)
Senator Bennett. . . .
Has anybody in the federal court examined the
merits of the State court judge’s opinion? (See
Hearing before the Congress of the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on
Government Programs - One Hundred and Four Congress,
Second Session, September 25, 1996
Chairman Peter G. Torkildsen. . .
It would appear, I think, to a reasonable person
that both for the Sweeneys and the Scotts that
some degree of fraud by the former ComFed
Institution was perpetrated against them. . . . . .
. . . . .and the fact that it was done fraudulently by
an Institution is bad enough on its own, but it is
my belief that the fact that the federal government
has certainly prolonged some of this agony, and I
do think that is a fair statement, is
unconscionable. . . .
Peter P. Britton, Member Town of Hamilton Planning Board
I am outraged to have witnessed such brutish
interference in the affairs of a state and town
by federal agencies and their agents.
I have never in my previous twenty years on the
Planning Board of Hamilton, Massachusetts faced a
more serious threat to our board’s credibility as protector
of the public trust.
If the FDIC prevails, what are we to tell good faith
buyers of property? We need declare that we have been
made aware of fraud, an awareness shared by ComFed’s
own admission, by Judge Izzo, and I am made to understand
by the FBI. . . . .
. . . at worse the FDIC is an accessory or accomplice
to theft of property of Massachusetts State Court record.
We are watching, hopefully from Hamilton, Massachusetts
that you will aggressively provide oversight and a remedy.
The Town of Hamilton and it’s Planning Board will not
recognize the sale of the Sweeney property or representations
of proposed subdivision by the FDIC as anything other
than sale of stolen property.