AFFIDAVIT
Rhetta B. Sweeney, swears under the pains of perjury that the following set of facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
CHRONOLOGY
1. In August, 1997, the Sweeneys learned for the first time that foreclosure decrees were granted in Essex Superior Court C.A. 88-3163 and C.A.88-3166 against their Hamilton properties. New evidence gained in 1997, details that the note which was subject to the foreclosure actions was fraudulently entered into by the ComFed defendants. See Office of Thrift Supervision Memorandum July 31, 1990 – referencing October 24, 1988 examination.
2. On August 16, 1996, new evidence by way of a Freedom of Information Act document, stated that Hanify & King never had the required "Legal Service Agreement" which was necessary before their firm was authorized to represent the Resolution Trust Corporation in the Sweeney action. This document -- on it's face -- is proof that Hanify & King acted without authority on January 30, 1991 when their firm went to Middlesex Superior Court and represented that they were acting as agents for the Resolution Trust Corporation in the Sweeney action and were authorized to remove our original files from the Court.GO TO: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on FDIC)
3. On March 1, 1991, in a hearing before Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, noted on the record of the U. S. District court for the district of Massachusetts, and I quote:
THE COURT: Well, what I guess I don't understand is why doesn't Middlesex court have these papers, the original of these papers? The only way that papers get over here on removal is certified copies or a writ of certiorari is issued by the Court. I'm not aware that a writ was issued here, so, consequently, we shouldn't have the original papers.
NOTE: William Lee of the Attorney General's Office attended the hearing.
4. On February 25, 1991, the Sweeney lawyers received a copy of the state court docket sheet from the clerk at Middlesex Court which detailed that our state court judgment had entered on January 30, 1991.
5. On February 8, 1991, Hanify & King falsely stated, by letter, to the U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts as follows:
"Delivered to you today for filing pursuant to Local Rule 81.1 (A) are the following materials obtained from Middlesex Superior Court, comprising the complete record in the above captioned case. Also included are a certified docket sheet and notice or removal."
Note: The state court judgment was removed from our state court files and was concealed in the offices of Hanify & King.
6. On January 30, 1991, a $4 million dollar state court judgment was entered by the trial judge, the Honorable Katherine Liacos Izzo, against the Massachusetts bank and it's subsidiaries because it committed "Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices" against us. The 45 page state court judgment paid back our loan in full and awarded us further damages because of the harm we had suffered from the bank's unfair actions.
7. On January 30, 1991, lawyers for the bank ComFed, Hanify & King, went to the state court, Middlesex Superior in Cambridge, MA and falsely stated that they were authorized agents of the federal agency Resolution Trust Corporation and had the authority to take our entire original state court files, including the $4 million dollar judgment which had just been entered against their clients. Note: The defendant ComFed had been placed in Conservatorship for reasons of unsafe and unsound lending practices by the Office of Thrift Supervision on December 13, 1990. GO TO:
http://www.qui-tam.com (click on John D. Hanify affidavit).
8. On January 30, 1991, Joan Sullivan, a clerk in Middlesex Superior Court gave Kara Lucciola of Hanify & King our entire original state court files, including our $4 million dollar judgment. John Hanify concealed the existence of the Sweeney judgment for 26 days in violation of Massachusetts law. See Massachusetts General Laws, c. 266 sec. 30 (1), stating:
"(1) Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the property stolen is a firearm, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, or if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years; or, if the value of the property stolen, other than a firearm as so defined, does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars; or, if the property was stolen from the conveyance of a common carrier or of a person carrying on an express business, shall be punished for the first offence by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both, and for a subsequent offence, by imprisonment for not less than eighteen months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both.
(2) The term "property", as used in the section, shall include money, personal chattels, a bank note, bond, promissory note, bill of exchange or other bill, order or certificate, a book of accounts for or concerning money or goods due or to become due or to be delivered, a deed or writing containing a conveyance of land, any valuable contract in force, a receipt, release or defeasance, a writ, process, certificate of title or duplicate certificate issued under chapter one hundred and eighty-five, a public record, anything which is of realty or is annexed thereto, a security deposit received pursuant to section fifteen B of chapter one hundred and eighty-six, electronically processed or stored data, either tangible or intangible, data while in transit, telecommunications services, and any domesticated animal, including dogs, or a beast or bird which is ordinarily kept in confinement."
9. On October 1, 1990, ComFed Savings Bank, and ComFed Mortgage Company, Inc.filed a RICO action against Baldini, and 34 other defendants. This acts as an admission of the Bank's knowledge of the pattern of fraud being committed by Baldini, Miller, Porter, Furey, Maloof. (GO TO: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on ComFed C.A. 90-
90-6712).
10. On August 27, 1987, we entered into commercial loan agreements with ComFed Savings Bank of Lowell, Massachusetts to finance the development of our home and 14 acres of land. When the bank violated their own rules, state laws, federal regulations, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, we filed claims against the bank for "unfair and deceptive trade practices." The bank lost the case. GO TO: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on Judgment $4,000,000.).
THEREFORE, because of the above described violations by individuals in Essex and Middlesex Superior Court, the Sweeneys request that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts –specifically the office of the District Attorney for Essex County -- take immediate action, to include, arrest, arraignment, and prosecution of those responsible immediately.
December 8, 1997