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
their home.

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.

    Chairman Cohen . . . . .
    As part of my earlier efforts to examine the actions
    of banking agencies, I was informed of an
    extraordinary case in Massachusetts involving
    Rhetta and John Sweeney, who are here with us
    today to testify. (See page 4)

    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,. . . . .
    (See p.3)

    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.