159.  Upon information and belief, that belief being the
circumstantial and the actions taken by PENZETTA, that PENZETTA then
obviously interfered in the matter, and contacted either, or both,
the BAUM LAW FIRM and/or Putnam County Supreme Court Judge Andrew
O'Rourke (hereinafter "JSC O'ROURKE) because days later, when
PLAINTIFFS received via regular U.S. Mail a copy of "motion" that
had already been faxed to JSC O'ROURKE'S Court Chambers that WELLS
FARGO, via the BAUM LAW FIRM was requesting his Honor to completely
change major findings held in his ORIGINAL DECISION AND ORDER for
which the parties were bound.

    160.  This faxed motion request had attached to it the BAUM LAW
FIRM'S own carefully reworded "Amended Decision and Order"
(hereinafter "AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER") with a cover letter
noting the "request" that was submitted, not by an attorney, but by
a mere legal assistant that stated:

        "Therefore, enclosed for Your Honor's review is a
        proposed Amended Order correcting the above-mentioned
        error.  We respectfully request that Your Honor review
        the Amended Order and, if it meets with your approval,
        that you execute the same and return a copy to this
        office in the enclosed postage paid envelope."

    161.  PLAINTIFFS' first knowledge of the BAUM LAW FIRM'S motion
was when we received a partial copy, missing the stated
"attachments", in the U.S. Mail, four (4) days after the BAUM LAW
FIRM'S assistant had faxed this motion to Chambers.  PLAINTIFFS then
immediately faxed back to Chambers the very next morning a response,
outrage and challenge in opposition, that the motion was not
properly noticed to Appellants, was untimely, and too late to
reargue as the thirty day time limit had expired.


                              - 27 -
H


    162.  Not only that, but in order to file a motion for leave to
reargue, that the leave motion was first required for them to pay a
proper filing fee CPLR 8020(a), neither of which was ever done.

        "The fact that a motion may affect or even be directly
        addressed to a prior order does not relieve it of the
        requirement that a fee be paid for the motion when the
        papers are filed with the county clerk." "(Section 253
        Motion Practice, Motion affecting Prior Order)"

    163.  That by faxing their motion directly to the Lower Courts'
Chambers, Respondents were able to evade the scrutiny of the County
Clerk for filing a legal and proper motion with the proper service
to Appellants, let alone pay the required filing fee.   More
importantly they were able to avoid a challenge for leave to reargue
a CPLR 2221 from PLAINTIFFS.  The Court minutes are clear, they show
that the BAUM LAW FIRM'S motion was never filed with the County
Clerk, and no fee was ever paid.

    164.  JSC O'ROURKE quickly granted and signed the BAUM LAW
FIRM'S AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, a clear violation of PLAINTIFFS'
constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the
law.  The law is clear as shown below:

    "As a matter of policy, an attempt to avoid the binding
    effect of a prior ruling should be accomplished by
    reversal of such ruling upon an appeal, and not by a
    coordinate tribunal's failure to follow it.  The doctrine
    of the law of the case articulates the sound policy that
    once an issue is judicially determined, that should be
    the end of the matter as far as judges and courts of coordinate
    jurisdiction are concerned.  When a court makes a legal
    determination in a case, that determination, if not
    appealed from, becomes the "law of the case" and controls
    when the question which led to it is again presented in
    that same case.  The decided issue becomes binding not
    only on the parties, but on all other judges of coordinate
    jurisdiction.  Thus a court of coordinate jurisdiction
    ordinarily should not disregard an earlier decision on
    the same question in the same case."
    28 NY Jur 2d Courts and Judges Section 236 Generally

    "The law of the case doctrine applies to motions, so that
    in the absence of a statutory exception and in order to
    prevvent vexations and repeated applications on the same
    point, a motion once fully heard and decided cannot be
    revived again ... The doctrine of the law of the case
    extends only to judicial determinations, ... Moreover, it
    applies to various stages of the same litigation, ..."
    (Emphasis added)

    165.  PLAINTIFFS filed a Notice of Appeal which stated:

        "... herein granted an ex-parte informal "motion" requested
        and granted to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Inc., that
        Court dated April 27, 2007, and was "the law of the
        case" which held findings of facts which were entirely
        deleted from Plaintiffs own prepared "Amended Decision
        and Order" that was faxed directly to Court Chambers

                              - 28 -
H


        (Plaintiff's own fax number appears on the rubber
        stamped signed "order"); that the Court erred as the
        time to make a motion to reargue must be made within
        the time frame of the time to file a notice of appeal,
        illegal "motion" in that a CPLR 2221 motion to reargue
        first mandates a motion for leave of the court to
        reargue where Defendants can assert laches, that no
        such motion had ever timely been made or noticed upon
        Defendants, that no supporting sworn affidavit by any
        attorney accompanied this instant "motion", and said
        motion was not even filed by by an attorney but a
        "legal assistant" of Plaintiff's attorney's office, and
        a copy of the proposed "amendment" sent to Defendants
        failed to contain critical exhibits."


    166.  JSC O'ROURKE'S office then contacted PLAINTIFFS and called
for a second preliminary conference.  PLAINTIFF Scott Webster had to
again travel 600 miles in an 11 hour drive to a "conference" held by
an assistant which turned out to be merely a confrontation in
intimidation by an attorney representing the BAUM LAW FIRM.  This
second "conference" also produced nothing. At the first "conference"
JSC O'ROURKE merely took all the papers on submission asking Scott
"if there was anything to add."

    167.  PLAINTIFFS believed this second conference would have some
relevance since PLAINTIFFS raised the issue of obvious ex-parte
communications since it is unbelievable that some "legal assistant"
would willy nilly see fit to write a sitting Supreme Court Judge to
change findings of facts in a settled decision and order which were
of a serious detriment to an opposing party, and then fax it to a
sitting Supreme Court Judge without a proper motion, notice, and
complete documents to the adverse party.

    168.  That "conference" was held October 3, 2007 and conducted
by Amelia P. DelVecchio for which the Court never followed the law
that requires the following as proscribed by title 22 Judiciary,
Section 202.12 (d) which states:

     "At the conclusion of the conference, the court shall make
     a written order including its directions to the parties
     as well as stipulations of counsel.  Alternatively,
     in the court's discretion all directions of the court and
     stipulations of counsel may be recorded by a reporter...
     The transcript shall be filed by the plaintiff with the
     clerk of the court."

    169.  JSC O'ROURKE never filed any written order or directions
even though PLAINTIFFS have requested them in writing for each
conference, another example of being deprived of due process.


                   --- JURISDICTION ---

-- STARTING THE FORECLOSURE WITHOUT HOLDING OWNERSHIP OF MORTGAGE --

    170.  When WELLS FARGO filed the foreclosure action December 15,
2006, with the filing of the LIS PENDENS, they lacked standing
because they did not have the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE in their possession

                              - 29 -
H


at filing time, as the Assignment of Mortgage from MERS dated
January 10, 2007, that was WELLS FARGO'S own exhibit in support of
their Motion for Summary Judgement (hereinafter "ASSIGNMENT FROM
MERS") that was executed on December 20, 2006, six days after the
preparation and date of the Summons and Complaint, and five days
after the filing of the foreclosure action with the Clerk, who
issued the index number.

    171.  Additionally, the fax date at the bottom of the page
clearly shows that Plaintiffs may not have actually had this
document in their possession until as late as 02/16/2007, nor when
they filed their Motion for Summary Judgement until February 28,
2007, twelve (12) days after they received their exhibit "B".
PLAINTIFFS point out that the ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS, that this is
proof of the fact that at the time of the filing of the Summons and
Complaint in this foreclosure action, AND THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY,
that Plaintiffs did not have the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE in their hands,
or own the Mortgage being foreclosed, and therefore lacked
jurisdiction.  PLAINTIFFS assert that this was the reason WELLS
FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM did not attach or include the LIS
PENDENS with the Summons and Complaint when they served PLAINTIFFS
herein.

    172.  The most telling proof is that before January 10, 2007,
almost a month after the filing of the foreclosure action, the
ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS actually shows that it clearly is a sales
contract that WELLS FARGO had to purchase back or purchase for the
first time, and only after PLAINTIFFS raised the issue of standing
in their opposition papers.  This is further proof that not only did
WELLS FARGO not have the necessary ORIGINAL MORTGAGE at the time
they foreclosed, but never owned it at the time of the closing for
the refinancing almost two years prior, and therefore could not have
legally created the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, as WELLS FARGO and
PENZETTA claimed in the paperwork and documents.  This is further
proof that a fraud had been perpetrated upon PLAINTIFFS.  The
critical wording on the ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS is "... in
consideration of One or More Dollars..." as the following shows:

        "KNOW, that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
        Inc. ... Assignor in consideration of One or More
        Dollars...  paid by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ... Assignee,
        hereby assigns unto Assignee, a certain mortgage made by
        SCOTT E. WEBSTER and JEAN ALLEN WEBSTER, given to First
        Fidelity Bank N.A., to secure the sum of One hundred and
        sixty two thousand dollars ($162,000.00) and interest,
        dated the 24th day of August, 1995 recorded on the 5th
        day of September, 1995 recorded on the 5th day of
        September, 1995 ... Liber 2110 ... Page 320..."

    173.  WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM attempted to defeat
PLAINTIFFS responding court papers through the cover up and
shielding of the actual time that the the ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS took
place, that it was dated and notarized on December 20, 2006, but
showed a back date to indicate that the transaction had taken place
19 days earlier to December 1, 2006, as the document stated "This
assignment is effective as of the 1st day of December, 2006."
PLAINTIFFS assert that this document is a clear attempt to deceive
PLAINTIFFS and the Court, as well as filing a false document in the
County Record.

                              - 30 -
H


    174.  PLAINTIFFS also show that the ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS again
dated January 10, 2007, for the purchase of the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE,
the notation at the bottom of the page "R&R to Steven J. Baum,
PC..." with the BAUM LAW FIRM'S address, and even has the date it
was faxed to them as "02/16/2007".  This charade was an attempt at a
retrofit to thwart PLAINTIFFS opposition to the foreclosure.

    175.  WELLS FARGO'S own Complaint, verified and sworn to on 14th
day of December, 2006, by KARASZEWSKI stated as follows on page 2:

           "The mortgage was subsequentily assigned to WELLS
           FARGO BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO
           HOME MORTGAGE, INC. by assignment.
       and
           "Said mortgage is to be assigned by an Assignment to
           be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of PUTNAM
           County.

    176.  These are the BAUM LAW FIRM'S own statements "...is to be
assigned..." which clearly is an admission that they did not have
the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE at the time of they initiated the foreclosure
action.  The first statement "The mortgage was subsequentialy
assigned..." is obviously not true.

    177.  The BAUM LAW FIRM again in an attempt at shielding the
true date of the ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS from PLAINTIFFS and the Court,
presented in an Affidavit for paragraph 44 which listed for item "i,
iii, iv, v, vi", for which they specifically list a date for each
item, however there is obviously no date for item ii.  The notable
absence of a date can only be deliberate in its intent because the
date of item ii, as shown above, occurred well after the filing of
of the WELLS FARGO'S CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE of June 16, 2005, by more
than one and a half years, and well after the filing of the
Complaint.  That statement read:

           "ii.  Assignment of Mortgage into Plaintiff of the
            Note and Mortgage for $162,000.00"

             --- FEDERAL JUDGE BOYKO DECISION ---

    178.  For the information of the Court, PLAINTIFFS call
attention to the recent Federal Opinion and Order by Federal Judge
Christopher A. Boyko, of the United States District Court, Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in which he dismissed fourteen
(14) cases of foreclosure brought on by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank.

        "On October 10, 2007, this Court issued an Order requiring
        Plaintiff-Lenders in a number of pending foreclosure cases
        to file a copy of the executed Assignment demonstrating
        Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the Note and
        Mortgage AS OF THE DATE THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, or the
        Court would enter a dismissal.
        (Boyko Order, page 1)

        "In the above-captioned cases, NONE of the Assignments
        show the named Plaintiff to be the owner of the rights,
        title and interest under the Mortgage at issue as of the
        date of the Foreclosure Complaint."
        (Boyko Order, page 3)

                              - 31 -
H


        "Plaintiff's "Judge, you just don't understand how things
        work" argument reveals a condescending mindset and
        quasi-monopolistic system where financial institutions
        have traditionally controlled, and still control the
        foreclosure process.  Typically, the homeowner who finds
        himself/herself in financial straits, fails to make the
        required mortgage payments and faces a foreclosure suit,
        if not interested in testing state or federal
        jurisdicational requirements, either pro se or through
        counsel. "    (Boyko Order, page 5)

           --- SHIELDING THE CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE ---

    179.  PLAINTIFFS, upon information and belief, that belief being
WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM'S own admission in their papers
submitted in support of their first Motion for Summary Judgement,
tried to shield the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE from PLAINTIFFS and the
Court, because they knew full well that it had been a fraud
perpetrated against PLAINTIFFS, and only when PLAINTIFFS raised the
issue in defense and in their Cross Motion, the BAUM LAW FIRM then
meekly presented to the court the following from affidavit of lawyer
KARASZEWSKI at the BAUM LAW FIRM in her paragraph 40,

       "Plaintiff erroneously and inadvertently failed to
        attach a complete copy of the mortgage documents to
        Plaintiff's application for summary judgement".

        "It is respectfully requested that the Plaintiff
        be allowed to amend its application for summary
        judgement to include a complete copy of the mortgage
        documents as attached hereto as Exhibits "A", "B",
        "C" and "D"."

    180.  PLAINTIFFS also point out that no notice of pendency was
ever filed for the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, another admission by the
WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM that its creation and demanded
signing by PLAINTIFFS at the closing was a total charade and fraud.

           --- FINAL JUDGEMENT OF FORECLOSURE ---

    181.  PLAINTIFFS now show perhaps the most serious act that
WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM have taken in violation of
PLAINTIFFS' constitutional right of due process, where these
Defendants submitted on their prepared JUDGEMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND
SALE that was signed on November 30, 2007, by JSC O'ROURKE which
clearly and unambiguously states:

        "... showing that each of the Defendants herein have
        been duly served with the Summons and Complaint
        in this action, or have voluntarily appeared by
        their respective attorneys, and stating that more
        than the legally required number of days had elasped
        since said Defendants were so served and/or appeared;
        and that none of the Defendants had served any answer
        to said Complaint, nor had their time to do so had
        been extended, ... and that the Complaint herein and
        due Notice of Pendency of this action ..."



                              - 32 -