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:
At 2:37 p.m. today, as reflected by Airborne Express tracking information, a letter was delivered which you sent to me at 9:49 p.m. on July 3, the eve of the July 4th holiday weekend, four days ago.
You have a telephone. You have email. You have refused to use either. You persist in engaging in time-wasting maneuvers, such as last Thursday, when I was told repeatedly a fax was coming by your office, for several hours, just as has occurred today, when I have contacted you three times after being informed first thing this morning you were "trying to send me a fax." You have not responded to any of these communications today and I have again received nothing from you that originated today.
Your client has claimed to be "negotiating" in "good faith" with the Sweeney's, in its self-serving July 2 letter, released to the media July 2nd and 3rd.
You demanded a proposal and you got one. Today , you reiterate the bogus claim that you just "can't waste taxpayer money" as your excuse to threaten the Sweeneys yet again with forcible eviction by armed federal agents.
You cannot on the one hand claim to be "negotiating" in good faith, while simultaneously engaging -- or threatening to engage -- in conduct that is in direct contravention of a proposal your client has not even yet considered. Possession of the property by the Sweeneys is clearly in issue and is part of the proposal. Your threats amount to your own-out-of-hand assertion that this portion of the proposal has been rejected, absent any approval by your client, who demanded the proposal.
The underlying State Court Judgment – enforceable against ComFed Mortgage which was not part of the removal action -- as well as your federal court judgment, obtained by removal well beyond any statutory period for removal, are both clearly in issue, not, as you claim, a one-sided issue. Hence the basis for your client's supposedly "good-faith" negotiations.
Why is it that your only tactic is to terrorize my clients with your threats, while avoiding communications? How do you have authority to reject proposals that have not been submitted to your client?
Since we are very clearly in negotiations, at your client's very public insistence, if you or your client move to enforce the forcible eviction of my clients during this purported negotiation process, you may expect a lawsuit against you personally and your law firm for abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and any other physical damages that occur to the Sweeneys or their property, as well as bar complaints.
There is no possibility at this point that your repeated out-of-hand rejection of the Sweeney's proposal which includes possession of the property, is anything but what it is: a threat meant to terrorize the Sweeneys and force them to capitulate to your demands during the negotiation process. That is duress, that is unconscionable, and it is malicious, and it clearly is not intended to facilitate any good-faith negotiations.
Please be governed accordingly.
As a side note, the zipcode reflected on my previous correspondence to you is in error, however, the address and zipcode I gave to you personally when we first spoke on July 2 is correct. The correct zip code is (this shall remain undisclosed.)