|
DEFENDANTS LETTER TO THE ASSIGNED REFEREE - REGARDING THE FORCED SALE |
January 24, 2008
Jean Allen Webster
Defendant, pro se
204 Charlotte Drive
Dugspur, VA 24325
(276) 728-5006
Scott E. Webster
Defendant, pro se
18 Fair Street
Cold Spring-on-Hudson
New York, 10516
(845) 265-3413
RE: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Scott E. Webster, et al
Index No. 2742/2006 Appellate Nos: 07-00263 08-00349
John Guttridge Esq.
303 South Broadway
Tarrytown, NY 10591
(914) 631-6900
(914) 631-6644 fax
Dear Mr. Guttridge:
We are sending you the following papers, noted below, with the
intent to put you on notice regarding the serious issues
involved in the above captioned action, your role in it, and
our position. The most recent being a Motion for a Contempt of
Court which was received Wednesday morning 11:34 am, January 23, 2008,
at the Appellate Division, and the copy to the Baum law firm
will have been delivered today, January 24, 2008.
Our immediate intention is to prevent the forced sale of our
property at auction by you or your firm. While we have solid
confidence that such a process, should you proceed with the sale,
would later return the property to us since Plaintiffs-Respondents
and their attorneys never achieved subject matter jurisdiction, ab
initio. Therefore, in order to save all parties further litigation,
in particular us in reclaiming our property, we hope you will not take
further action until a resolution of the Appellate matters have been
decided.
We have included in the attached papers, the documents which
pertain to you, without the exhibits that we feel are unnecessary
at this time.
FIRST - THE TRICK REGARDING THE TRO
-----------------------------------
We remind you of the disturbing phone call from you on Friday
morning, December 28, 2007, to Scott in what you described as a
notification call that you were preparing to file the notice of sale
for the auction of our property because the Plaintiffs-Respondents
were proceeding with their intentions for the forced auction sale of
our property.
I told you at that time of the assurances at the meeting with
the Baum's representive lawyer on that Monday December 17, 2007,
that the only reason the TRO had been crossed out, not by a judge as
you stated to me that had been told to you, but by mutual agreement
with Chief Clerk Pelzer, myself, and the attending attorney for the
Baum law firm.
I also told you that the reason the TRO was mutually deemed
"unnecessary" at that time as the Baum representive attorney
assured both of us that it would be at least four or five weeks
before they could take any action, and that by then a decision would
have been reached regarding the stay. The representive attorney
further acknowledged that they would not be taking any action until
a decision was reached.
In a followup telephone conversation with Chief Clerk Pelzer
early the following Monday morning, December 31, 2007, confirmed my
understanding of the TRO and why I had apparently been foolish to
dropping the request for the TRO, since, after all the Baum
representive attorney is an officer of the Court, at all times.
SECOND - THE MOTIONS BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION
--------------------------------------------------
We are sending the following papers in a precatory manner so
that you fully understand our position in this foreclosure matter,
some of which we have mailed to you in the past, and some of which I
stated to you in our phone conversation, to the effect that I
"promised" you would be named in a federal suit, if action was
taken.
Therefore we are sending the following two moving Affidavits for
the current motions submitted to the Appellate Division, Second
Department, plus several exhibits that we feel are pertinent to your
position regarding the "orders" and "judgements" granted by the
Lower Court.
THIRD - SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
-----------------------------------
As stated above, this is particularly true regarding the issue
of subject matter jurisdiction, which we asserted and documented
before the Lower Court numerous times. We strongly suggest that you
carefully read paragraphs 27 through 40 of our Affidavit in Support
for a Contempt of Court and Sanctions, and in particular the
following paragraph:
"28. It is well settled that subject matter
jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and its effect
on all of the proceedings granted, judgements,
decisions, and orders become void, ab initio."
While our sworn Affidavit speaks for itself, we strongly suggest
you also read Federal Court Judge Boyko's recent Decision which we
have attached hereto.
FOURTH - THE "OFFICIAL" NEWSPAPER
---------------------------------
After our telephone conversation of December 28, 2007, and
a careful reading the Lower Court's "Judgement" which stated:
"...that the said Referee give public notice of the
time and place of such sale according to law and the
practice of this Court, in an official publication,
to wit: THE PUTNAM COUNTY PRESS; ..."
We were totally shocked in the naming of this "publication" for
a foreclosure notice since this is a completely unrecognizable and
virtually unknown paper in Putnam County serving the small community
of Mahopac only, and has very, very, limited circluation. My sister
and brother-in-law who live in Croton Falls, within ten miles of
Mahopac have not heard of this less than serious "official
publication", and of the dozen Putnam County friends I have
contacted, only one had heard of that paper, a licensed real estate
broker who referred to it as a puny listing that is not serious and
kind of a joke.
The Putnam County Press, AKA The Putnam County Times, neither of
which are even registered with the NYS Sectrary of State, and
neither is Mondo Code, LLC, or Mondo Press, as our attached text
printout shows, who is the apparent owner.
Our research disclosed the disturbing information of attached
text printout from the "Putnam County Press" website which states:
"You can also reach us by regular mail:
"Mondo Code LLC
PO Box 1288
Boulder CO 80306
USA"
"in Mahopac, New York, USA covering general news"
(from Contact Information)
"Don Hall is the editor of the Putnam County Press.
"For Putnam County Press contact information, become a
Mondo Times Advanced or Professional Member. If you are a
member, log in now."
"Putnam County Press Ratings
Content: Not yet rated
Political Bias: Not yet rated
Credibility: Not yet rated"
The selection of the Putnam County Press as listed in the Judgement
for Foreclosure and Sale, which document was prepared and submitted
to the Lower Court for signing, is a clear indication that no
serious attempt was intended either by Wells Fargo, their attorneys,
and which would have to include you and your firm, as well.
FIFTH - THE INTENTIONS OF WELLS FARGO AND THE LAW FIRM
------------------------------------------------------
We recently came upon a troubling document that was NOT included
with Respondents original motion for the initial Summary Judgement,
but the individual pages were. We suggest you see the enclosed
Motion for a Contempt of Court at paragraphs 82, 83, and 84.
This document, bearing the title of "MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
CERTIFICATE ... CERTIFIES TO: Steven J. Baum, P.C." and states,
"Certified as of October 1, 2006 at 9:00 A.M." by Prime Title
Search, LLC.
We believe that this document is prima facie proof that
Respondent Wells Fargo, their attorneys, and others, acting in
concert, never really intended to work with us to prevent a
foreclosure, and that Steven J. Baum LLC., may very well have
purchased the loan default obligation with an intent to force a
foreclosure sale on our property in order to obtain the large equity
it had, which would most certainly been guaranteed with the auction
notice being directed and limited to the Putnam County Press, as the
Baum law firm had directed when they wrote their own prepared
Judgement order.
Had the initial intention originally been to secure and cover
the original debt for their "client", a major effort would have been
made to advertise the notice in a large, reputable publication in
the real estate section to assure a fair and suitable price to cover
the lender. To do less for a "client" would be a fiduciary failure
to protect the client from financial harm due to an abnormally low
"sale". Unless, however, the client had intended the matter to
handled at the original refinancing, which would explain the
violations of RESPA, TILA, and the commitment terms letter
which we complained about in our answering papers to the Lower
Court.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS LETTER
--------------------------
1. Order to Show Cause motion, dated 12-17-2007, 15 pages;
sans 21 exhibits;
2. Reply Affidavit dated 12-26-2007, 5 pages, no exhibits;
3. Notice of Motion and Affidavit in Support dated 1-22-08
23 pages, sans 20 exhibits;
4. Federal Judge Boyko's Decision, 6 pages;
5. a) Prime Title Search, LLC dated 10-01-07 1 page;
b) Assignment of Mortgage dated 01-10-07 1 page;
c) Assignment of Mortgage, 2nd page "dated 12-20-07"
1 page;
d) Page printout of Court Clerk's Minutes;
e) Notice of Pendency of Action dated 12-14-06 1 page;
f) "Mortgage to be Foreclosed" page from Prime undated
1 page;
g) Certificate of loan payout from Wells Fargo
dated 05-23-07 1 page;
h) Confirmation of Loan Payoff from Wells Fargo dated
05-24-05 1 page;
i) Payout letter from Wells Fargo dated 03-05-05 1 page;
6. Copy of letter to Senator Christopher Dodd, 28 pages,
as discussed during 12-28-07 telephone conversation.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Sincerely,
_____________________
Scott E. Webster
Defendant pro se
_____________________
Jean Allen Webster
Defendant pro se