JOHN & RHETTA SWEENEY
24 Meyer Lane
Hamilton, MA 01982
508-468-1536
508-468-4428 (fax)
E-MAIL jsweeney@star.net
INTERNET http://www.qui-tam.com/

By Fax
617-727-9725

January 14, 1998


Governor Paul Cellucci
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
STATE HOUSE
Boston, MA 02133

Re:        STATE LAW PROTECTION OF SWEENEYS

Dear Governor Cellucci:

        Please have this letter respectfully serve as a demand (in the event of an attempt by federal agents to seize our home and properties at 24 Meyer Lane and 776 Bay Road in Hamilton, MA ) that your office provide the necessary protection for John and Rhetta Sweeney pursuant to Massachusetts Constitution Articles IV, V, VII, X, XXIX, and Amendment, Article LIV, and the U. S. Constitution.

        Note Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Sections 2 and 3.

. . .and "Further explanation and evidence of the independence of the State Executive from federal law is found in the recent Supreme Court case, Printz v. United States, 65 LW 4731 (June 24, 1997). "These early laws establish, at most, that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions, insofar as those prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power." Id. At 4733. "Not only do the enactments of the early Congresses, as far as we are aware, contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the State's executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization, they contain some indication of precisely the opposite." At 4734. "The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens." At 4737. Emphasis added. Other references passim."

        We have been advised by counsel that it is appropriate and necessary that the valid state court record be reestablished and we have instructed our lawyers to proceed immediately to do so.

        We have contacted the FDIC Board of Directors, stating that, upon the satisfaction of the state court judgment, the FDIC maximum demand of $637,000 payment on the note, in return for release of both properties, will be paid to the FDIC. It is important that you be aware that the "note" is not the issue but the surrounding criminal violations which resulted in the unlawful auction and taking title of our properties by the FDIC.

        As you know, we have also requested that District Attorney Burke prosecute the individuals who knowingly, without authority, took our original state court records, including the $4 million judgment and concealed the document for 26 days in the law offices of Hanify & King. Tampering and Concealment of Court records, as you know, is a criminal violation. In addition, no subject matter federal jurisdiction could have been gained by those actions. NOTE: The U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts does not have jurisdiction of our case. Therefore, the orders of possession issued by Judge Harrington and submitted to the U. S. Marshal office as a basis for seizure of our properties are invalid.

        Thank you for your immediate and continued assistance in this matter.

          Very truly yours,

          John & Rhetta Sweeney


cc:    Nancy McGillivray
        FDIC Board of Directors
        Senator Bruce Tarr
        A. Kevin Burke
        Attorney General Janet Reno