RECENT LETTER TO "ATTORNEYS" FOR WELLS FARGO
    Dated 09/08/2009

    Via Fax (212) 918-3100
    & U.S. Mail

    September 8, 2009

    Scott E. Webster and
    Jean Allen Webster
    Plaintiffs, pro se
    204 Charlotte Drive
    Dugspur, VA 24325
    (276) 728-5006
    CRI@SWVA.net

                               Re: Scott E. Webster and Jean Allen Webster
                                   pro se, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al.
                                   Index No.:   08 CIV  10145 (LAP)

                               Re: Telephone conversation 09/04/09


    Katie Lachtor, Esq.
      Allison Schoenthal, Esq.
    Hogan & Hartson
    875 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10022
    Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    (212) 918-3647  office (212) 918-3000
    (212) 918-3100 fax

    Dear Katie:

    This letter is in response to our telephone conversation on Friday,
    September 4, 2009.   You called us to discuss our Notices of Default
    and Demand for an Answer that were sent to the four defaulting
    Defendants.

    My understanding is that your call was in reference to your firm's
    stated intention of submitting a motion to the Federal Court to
    dismiss the Summons and Verified Amended Complaint against Wells
    Fargo and Richard M. Kovacevich for our lack of proper service.  It
    appears that your call was in direct response to our Notices of
    Default and Demand for an Answer for which we had sent you a copy.

    During our conversation you stated that you had not seen listed with
    the Court record, the individual return of the service papers, and
    that the Court's computer was not running that morning.  After that
    call I also contacted the pro se office and also could not confirm
    because of the computer outage.

    Today, Tuesday, I again checked with the pro se office and the
    original returns had not been logged into the system as they should
    have been, even though the pro se office stamped our copies on July
    30, 2009, of those original returns we submitted.  At this time the
    pro se office is locating the fifteen (15) returns and will be
    entering them into the system.

    In our conversation Friday, I told you that I would send you copies
    of the returns for the defaulting Wells Fargo entities, however we
    have decided to withold them until the pro se office enters them
    into the system.  Experience has taught us to be careful of
    unnecessary exposure of documents that could be used against us,
    even if only in timing.  In this case we would not want you moving
    the court for dismissal using our copies until the Court system has

                                                            page 2/5

    been updated.  This is especailly true where we would need a clerk's
    certification that process has been completed.  We hope you will
    understand.

    For the record, you (your firm), to the best of our knowledge has
    been receiving full copies of all Court submitted papers, not only
    by us, but all papers submitted from the other defendants who have
    appeared to date.

    The only reason that your firm has been getting these papers, is
    that Laura Shrewsburry had included Allison Schoenthal, Esq. of
    Hogan and Hartson on her mailing list.  Also receiving all papers
    sybmitted as noted above is John Grisson, Esq. of "Wells Fargo Law
    Department" in Des Moines, also introduced into the equation as
    "Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Richard M. Kovacevich,
    CEO".  We question why Mr. Grisson has not contacted us regarding
    Kovacevich as he is referred to in the Shrewsburry list as
    representing Kovacevich.

    Neither of the firms have appeared on behalf of any entity or agent
    of Wells Fargo, nor did we find anything on the internet or
    elsewhere indicating "attorneys of record" or for any kind of
    contact whatsoever.  Why, and for what reason Laura decided to
    include these firms is beyond us, however to protect ourselves, we
    sent all copies of our paperwork as a precaution.

    We don't believe that there is any legal basis, at this time, for
    your firms being privy to the prior litigation.  We would argue
    however, that there was certainly some kind of service of the notice
    of the Complaint by Laura Shrewsberry by initially serving her
    moving papers, which included the Complaint, to both your firm and
    that of Mr. Grisson.

    We should note, again for the record, that we have received nothing
    to indicate whether your firm or Mr. Grisson is representing any of
    the parties on the suit.  We have received no letter with heading
    from the firms, only Laura's "cc" with her intial moving papers.
    Given our past experience with Wells Fargo and their attorneys for
    the foreclosure, this presents a dicey situation where information
    given even in a simple matter could be used against us at a later
    time.

    During our conversation on Friday, I stated several times that we
    fully believe that our services against those listed on the Notice
    and Demand, were proper, and can be sustained in securing either
    default judgements, or in the alternative to have the named
    defaulted defendants to be ordered to answer the Complaint.  While
    we can appreciate your assertion that the Court could not or would
    not order a defendant to answer a complaint, we choose to differ, as
    it was done many years ago in World's Fair Marina Boatowners
    Association, Scott Webster, et al, v.  NYC Department of Parks, as
    petitioners in an Article 78 where the Judge ordered the City to
    answer the Petition.

    You have asserted to us that Wells Fargo is a client of Hogan and
    Hartson, and that apparently you, on belhaf of Wells Fargo would be
    "willing" to accept service of our Amended Verified Complaint if we
    would be willing to drop Defendant Richard M. Kovacevich.  This was
    an offer you had made to us by you on a phone conversation on or
    about May 5th or 6th, 2009.  This was a conditional offer which we

                                                            page 3/5

    decided was not necessary, as during that conversation I responded
    that service was being done on the Baum Law Firm, the firm who
    initiated the foreclosure action against us.

    When you challenged whether they were a law firm representing Wells
    Fargo, I stated that we had a "plethora" of documents that were
    outside of the litigation, and that the firm had been representing
    Wells Fargo to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as
    Wells Fargo's attorney.  That and other matters.  We are also aware
    that NYS law allows service on an attorney for separate actions,
    where the parties have been engaged in similiar issues or actions of
    a somewhat common nature.  Of course, this is a matter for the Court
    to decide and rule upon.

    To cover our bases, we then had the corporate office of Wells
    Fargo,that consistly listed as the official national headquarters
    wherever one looks, served in San Francisco with professional
    process servicers whom assured me that they have served many suits
    against Wells Fargo for out-of-state litigation, even in outside
    Federal action.  We think this service will easily withstand any
    challenge, of course, this is a matter for the Court to decide and
    rule upon.

    Still to cover our bases, we then went to the trouble and expense to
    have the defaulting Wells Fargo entities served and the Ft. Mill, SC
    location, the ones that initiated the foreclosure action against
    us.  While we can understand your questioning whether that service
    was effective, as I stated in our conversation, if the initiating
    party in a law suit can't be served, then perhaps Wells Fargo, at
    that location lacked standing ab initio to bring the foreclosure
    suit.  Again, we think this service will easily withstand any
    challenge, but again, of course, this is a matter for the Court to
    decide and rule upon.

    It appears from our Friday conversation that there was some thought
    by your firm of moving for dismissal for lack of service, and that
    the 120 day time limit has expired, and that this would be an easy
    way for Wells Fargo to avoid the scrutiny of the serious issues
    raised in the Complaint.

    As Rule 4 (m) states regarding the time limit to complete service:

                  "If a defendant is not served within 120 days after
                  the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on
                  its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss
                  the action without prejudice against that defendant or
                  order that service may be made within a specified
                  time."

    However, Rule 4 (m) further states and concludes regarding the time
    limit to complete service:

                  "But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
                  failure, the court MUST EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE
                  for an appropriate period." (emphasis added)

    Should your firm decide to move the court to dismiss for failure to
    serve the defaulting defendants before we can resolve these service
    matter, our then submission of the returns, the invoices, letters
    involving the Baum firms representing Wells Fargo as their attorneys

                                                            page 4/5

    outside the direct litigation, the court, at its worst ruling
    against us would dismiss the Amended Complaint against them "without
    prejudice" wherein we would then refile the action against them, or
    most likely in the alternative issue amended summons to be served
    against the defaulters.

    Hence, a dismissal motion at this time would gain nothing for you
    except the unnecessary involvement of the court.  We would also
    request a pre-motion conference as required by the Practices of
    Magistrate Judge Maas (paragraph 2 (A)), although they request the
    moving party to submit the request, which we would answer, probably,
    with a copy of this letter.

    Our insistance that Mr.  Kovacevich be kept on as a defendant is
    partially that his removal would possibly open the door for some, or
    all, of the defendants to move to strike out critical paragraphs of
    the Complaint as unsustainable without the joining of a critical
    party.  Also is the fact that we have asserted that Mr. Kovacevich
    has created what we have alleged as a criminal enterprise (see
    paragraphs 205, 228, 256, 257 of the Complaint) and that as the
    officer and head of that enterprise he is fully accountable.  Like
    Bernie Madoff, or Ken Lay, or even I as an officer of our business.

    What strikes us as absolutely incredible, is your statement that
    you, or your firm has not seen any of the eight (8) individual
    services enacted at the above stated addresses.  Surely at least one
    should have been forwarded to you or your firm.  We realize that
    probably you were not actually handed a served copy, but, if what
    you say is true that your firm is the "attorney of record" that not
    one of the eight sets of papers were sent on to the firm.

    Even so, as your firm has been getting all the litigation papers,
    including letters to the court of the defaulters, we wonder why
    someone from your firm did not bother to call your client Wells
    Fargo to inquire as to where any of these eight services ended up.
    We believe this failure to investigate these papers on behalf of a
    client, could possibly border on malpractice, but then, who are we
    to say.

    The failure of Wells Fargo to pass on any information is clearly a
    pattern of behavior employed, with the knowledge of Mr. Kovacevich,
    to discourage clients.  On 10/05/07 we sent a 20+ page, single
    spaced 105 paragraph letter citing serious problems including legal
    wrongdoings by Wells Fargo, to Senator Dodd with a copy to Mr.
    Kovacevich.  Mr Kovacevich was put on notice, and as usual Wells
    Fargo's policy of non-communication continued, and continues as was
    shown in the recent New York Times Article regarding Bobbi Giguere
    before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Haines and how Wells Fargo
    ignored her requests for loan modification.  Rest assurred your firm
    knows fully about this story which broke over the weekend.
    Ironically, Ms. Giguere just returned my call to help her as I was
    constructing the above paragraph.

    This pattern of arrogance, in complete opposition to Wells Fargo's
    carefully constructed web site, touting company philosophies advance
    and/or approved by Chairman (formerly CEO) Kovacevich, has been
    damaging many helpless borrowers in this country and it is a
    complete abrogation of the lending laws long established in this
    country, and sorely needs to be addressed in a court of law, by a
    jury.  We owe that much to our fellow citizens which is why we

                                                            page 5/5

    created TheOutlawLenders.com website.

    While I indicated to you that we find it hard to believe that after
    all the litigation, much involving Wells Fargo's admissions and
    documents, especially as we recently found that there had been an
    illegal, no, no transfer of the original mortgage to them in the
    first place, that they lacked standing ab initio and as I stated
    that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, after decisions and
    even "final" judgements have been rendered, and that even from a
    casual reading of our complaint by anyone at Wells Fargo, including
    the Baum Law Firm in the foreclosure action, that nobody even
    attempted to call and offer any kind of settlement.  Arrogance, not
    logic nor fairness, is the guiding light.

    We wish to state for the record that we have no first hand knowledge
    that your firm is actually the "attorney of record" in this matter,
    as no appearance put in for these defendants or anyone else at Wells
    Fargo.  While we realize that your firm might be the attorney of
    record for several of the recent Federal Law Suits, such as the one
    just filed as a RICO action, which is something we had initially
    thought about doing.

    I also mentioned that we should be researching the piercing the
    corporate veil regarding Norwest Corporation, the holding/hedgefund
    entity that took over Wells Fargo and took on the name and icon from
    that 150+ year old company that many borrowers had come to rely upon
    for fairness, honor, and responsibility.  However, Mr.  Kovacevich
    eliminated such honorable corporate qualities in 1998 when he stated
    to some employees of the original Wells Fargo company who as quoted:
    ". . .just didn't agree with the path Kovacevich and his team was
    taking": "We'd just say, "fine, then you should leave'" Kovacevich
    said."  He clearly changed the company, created and was/is
    responsible for what that entity has become, and is answerable for
    those changes, slogans, website, assurances, and actions.

    Regarding the issue of service that you stated would need to be
    resolved before any discussion of any kind of settlement takes
    place, we propose that we complete our motion to hold the four (4)
    defaulted defendants for the relief we will be seeking, and that we
    send our full moving papers, including copies of the returns of the
    service affidavits/affirmations to you for your response, with the
    understanding that we both try to resolve the service issues before
    either of us has to actually move and involve the court.

    I, Scott, will try to reach you in the next day or so to see if the
    above proposal would work for your firm.

    Thank you for your call, hopefully understanding, and continued
    communication.


         via U.S. Mail
     cc: John Grisson, Esq.                       _________________
         Wells Fargo Law Dept                     Scott E. Webster
         MAC X2401-06T                            Plaintiff, pro se
         One Home Campus
         Des Moines, IA 50328                     _________________
         Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.     Jean Allen Webster
           and Richard M. Kovacevich, CEO         Plaintiff, pro se