Linda Thompson
Attorney at Law
Undisclosed
| Telephone: Undisclosed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internet: Undisclosed |
Mr. Joe Shea
Mr. Neil Motenko
Nutter, McClennen & Fish
One International Place
Boston, MA 02110-2699
By Fax: 617-973-9748
In re: FDIC v. Sweeney
Dear Mr. Shea:
I received a Federal Express letter this afternoon at 3:37 p.m. your time, which consisted of a letter from you in which you claim that Andrew Hove claims that my clients' "intransigence and delaying tactics, capped by their failure to participate in a mediation arranged by their own attorney, required that they vacate" the Sweeney's properties "before making any settlement proposal."
Let me remind you that it was your client who, via you, last week on July 3, rejected every proposal I made to you, and demanded a settlement proposal. Let me further remind you that it was you and your client who rejected offers of mediation. It was your client who circulated a self-serving letter, dated June 30 (which was not sent to my clients other than by fax on July 1), falsely and publicly claiming to have made various offers to the Sweeneys, which you and your client have subsequently refused to put in writing. My first call to you requested that you put an offer in writing from FDIC, which you refused to do.
At no time were the Sweeneys aware that any mediation had been scheduled, nor had they been requested to, nor had they agreed, to the mediator, nor were they aware that any mediation was scheduled until contacted by a national television network concerning it. You advised me that no mediation had in fact occurred. The attorney was subsequently and immediately dismissed. At worst, a week's delay resulted from this series of events which are in no way attributable to the Sweeneys. Your client's claims that the Sweeney's are not willing to negotiate in good faith have been made and repeated publicly, even in the face of my contacting you and in the face of your own demand for a settlement proposal and in the face of my continuing efforts to effect these negotiations.
In your client's very public claims to have made specific offers to my clients, circulated to the media July 2 and 3, in fact, those offers from your clients would not include vacating the premises, either.
Thus, this new excuse for refusing to negotiate is nothing but a strawman excuse, as you continue to engage in the ongoing terrorism you are directing at my clients.
The Sweeneys intend to continue to occupy their property and to conduct further negotiations directly with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Office of Professional Responsibility, their Congressmen, and to make their situation – and you and your firm's role in it – as widely and publicly known as possible.
Further, I have today contacted your supervising partner, Neil Motenko, as well as the office of the managing partner, Mike Mooney, and Carl Barba and intend to make each of them fully aware of the consequences of your ongoing ratification of fraud, your intentional infliction of distress, and your assistance in libeling my clients. You are hereby put on notice that the Sweeneys make a claim against your errors and omissions policy with Attorney Liability Assurance Society, LTD (ALASA) and any other policy with which you or your firm may be insured for these harms to my clients.
Insofar as your feigned claims of concern for "saving taxpayer dollars," that claim falls flat in the face of your firm's billing the U.S. government over $1 million on this case so far, your own refusal to negotiate in good faith, and the tactics in which you personally have engaged which serve no purpose but to delay and exacerbate an already difficult situation. Additionally, your "solution" to wasting taxpayer dollars is to waste more of them by engaging federal agents, while doubtlessly continuing to bill the taxpayers for your own time. Since you claim to be so very concerned over the taxpayers' monies, perhaps you will remove the threat of federal agents entirely – thereby saving the taxpayers' considerable money – and come to the negotiating table in good faith, while simultaneously agreeing to conduct these negotiations pro bono for the taxpayers.
Likewise, FDIC is under a legal duty to mitigate losses and it cannot in any manner be said to be upholding this duty by wasting more and more money, paid to your firm to be rude and threatening, while refusing to negotiate, while publicly circulating outright falsehoods to the media of the "offers" FDIC has made to the Sweeneys. As you have confirmed by your most recent letter, the only "offer" made by FDIC, contrary to its public assertions, has been "get out or else."
My clients submitted a proposal to you as you demanded last week, after your client refused to put any of its purported "offers" in writing. My clients remain willing to entertain an offer from your clients and since Andrew Hove has publicly locked FDIC into a proclamation that they have made such offers, we again request that your client put such an offer in writing where it may be considered.
As a further matter, since you refuse to speak with me on the telephone and you refuse to use email, if you are going to communicate only by overnight letter, please use the "before 10:30 a.m." delivery option, since afternoon deliveries do not arrive here until approximately 3:00 my time, which is 4:00 your time and leaves me no time to respond the same day. Since these are clearly urgent issues, these sorts of delaying tactics – which you are engaging in – are patently absurd.
Additionally, you are requested to direct this letter to both your client and your supervising attorney, Neil Motenko.