Linda Thompson
Attorney at Law
Undisclosed
| Telephone: Undisclosed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internet: Undisclosed |
Mr. Joe Shea
Nutter, McClennen & Fish
One International Place
Boston, MA 02110-2699
By Fax: 617-973-9748
In re: FDIC v. Sweeney
Dear Mr. Shea:
You are advised that my clients are preparing an offer which will be submitted in writing to your clients by 5:00 p.m. Thursday.
Confirming our telephone conversations today, the Sweeneys relied upon your clients' repeated claims, both in the media and in letters to them, that the FDIC was "willing to negotiate in good faith." There are clear impediments to any meaningful negotiations, the first and most obvious being that the situation as it now exists poses an implied and continuous threat of invasion of the Sweeney's home by armed federal agents, at best, with a clear potential for serious bodily harm or death to the Sweeneys. This is well illustrated by the track record of the Boston U.S. Marshals Service in Idaho in 1992, resulting in the death of Sammy Weaver and U.S. Marshal Deagan, and Sammy's mother. Testimony at trial indicated Deagan was killed by the bullets of his own men as they shot the family dog and then gunned down 14-year-old Sammy Weaver. The Boston U.S. Marshals Service had dispatched six agents to Idaho to keep this remote, mountain cabin family under surveillance for 17 months – all ostensibly over a "missed court date" on a minor weapons charge. Becoming "bored," one of the agents threw rocks at the house. The final count, one mother, one boy, one U.S. Marshal, dead in a senseless overblown reaction all out of proportion to any semblance of common decency or common sense.
Knowing these Marshals are fully capable of such conduct, is it any wonder that the prospect of these agents arriving, unannounced at any hour of the day or night, is a constant source of terror to the Sweeneys? No person can be expected to negotiate a binding agreement under such compelling circumstances and duress. One would think your client would be interested in obtaining an agreement which would not present the appearance of such undue influence.
To alleviate this impediment, we proposed an agreement that beginning immediately and continuing for 30-60 days, no effort would be made by anyone to physically oust the Sweeneys or any person from either of the two properties. You flatly rejected this, stating to me that "the Marshals had an (eviction) order from the court" and that you had "no control over" what the Marshals might do. Ordinarily, you could simply pick up the phone and inform the U.S. Marshals service that negotiations are in process and to hold off. Secondly, it would be a very simple matter to submit a consent order for the Court's signature, staying execution for the duration of an agreed period of whatever order the Marshals may possess, delivering a copy of that agreed order to the U.S. Marshals service.
You stated you would "present this proposal to your client," however, your response later today (as it was before speaking to your client) was that this proposal was flatly rejected. In other words, your client's intended "negotiation" tactic has been and continues to be to terrorize the Sweeneys into capitulation.
Because I have seen various public statements from the FDIC in the media about offers they claim to have made to the Sweeneys, as well as entirely different offers referenced in the fax from FDIC yesterday to the Sweeneys, I asked that the FDIC put its best offer forward. That, too, was flatly rejected, with you repeating, monotonously, that the Sweeneys should "make a proposal." Clearly, we are making several proposals here, all of which have been flatly rejected.
We further proposed that the parties engage in meaningful negotiations in efforts to arrive at common ground and an amicable resolution, as your clients have claimed they want. You rejected this proposal out of hand, too, claiming you had "wasted the better part of last week" preparing for negotiations which did not occur. I was not involved in whatever transpired last week and made a good faith proposal to you. You claimed you would present this to your client, too, and the response, again, was a flat rejection, with a demand that the Sweeneys vacate the property and then "make a proposal."
We proposed that the negotiations be confidential, low-profile, and without attendant media hoopla. Later today, I learned that the FDIC yesterday had handed the media a copy of the FDIC's clearly self-serving fax of the same day to the Sweeneys, in which the FDIC portrays itself as ever-so-generously attempting to negotiate. After reading the fax yesterday, I had optimistically hoped that good-faith negotiations could begin immediately. You have made it abundantly clear today, however, that your client has no interest whatsoever in negotiating.
In the meantime, FDIC apparently evicted some other person near Boston today, complete with an army that included SWAT teams. The woman who related this was hysterical.
What country did you grow up in, Mr. Shea? Is this the United States or nazi Germany? What master do you really serve by these tactics, "just following orders"?
You are under legal and ethical duties to insure that arguments that you are present – or ratify by your own conduct – have a good faith basis in fact. You are under further specific legal duties not to perpetuate a fraud on an opposing party, nor upon the court, nor to violate the rights or interests of the Sweeneys, even "under color of law."
You pretended you were unaware that the Sweeneys had proceeded pro se through much of the litigation, after your clients' legal shenanigans virtually bankrupted them, when in fact, you were the opposing counsel against Mrs. Sweeney when she acted pro se, thereby facilitating the "orders" you obtained.
It is amazing that every person who has actually had the opportunity to look at the facts of this case, from the Secretary of Defense, to Congressmen, and an entire town council, as well as multiple attorneys and a state judge, found that your clients were crooks and the Sweeneys have been defrauded –all, that is, except your client.
Perhaps the most pathetic excuse I have seen offered to date has been the need to "proceed," out of "concern" over "taxpayer dollars," said in the face of ten years of litigation, the cost of which has well exceeded any possible value of the property.
Now, armed with "might makes right," your clients proceed to make false public proclamations to shore up their tainted public image, while terrorizing and taunting the Sweeneys in the meantime, and refusing to negotiate.
Bad faith is like art, Mr. Shea. Most people know it when they see it.
People have slaughtered others in the name of "just following orders" or "saving face" throughout countless totalitarian regimes; correspondingly, many a martyr has been born from a principled stand in the face of brutal oppression.
The Sweeneys are an unarmed, middle-aged couple, who, along with their daughter and others, all unarmed, have taken a principled stand against a gross injustice, simply by occupying their own property and refusing to surrender it to crooks.
I implore you and your client to reconsider your refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations. I beseech you, on bended knee if necessary, to call off the threat of physical attack, and come to the negotiation table in good faith.