All,


I wish it were so simple as to say they purchased something, therefore you can't enter it into evidence.& But things are not this easy.& Is everybody forgetting about a possible assignment, negotiation, or assumption&of the debt/note&by way of&the merger or acquisition of the entity (Norwest) itself?& Wells Fargo would not be 'collecting debt' by way of a purchase of it - they would be collecting on the instrument/note itself.& Even worse, if they did purchase the note in particular&(which they likely did not), then they&have rights as&a holder in due course, which would make life even more difficult for the maker.& Wells Fargo likely assumed all&assets and liabilites of Norwest, and that includes the fraudulent note&reflected in their fraudulent bookkeeping/accounts.


We should not&rely&on the simple idea of a remedy existing due to the purchase&of a debt/note - they get purchased everyday (see UCC-1-201(29) for definition of purchase); there is a property interest here.& If you argue they purchased the debt (and it was&actually the note that was purchased) and therefore they can't enter the debt into evidence, you will lose!& Purchasing evidence is relevant where a debt collector is involved (they don't have the origianl note itself and never became&a party to it b/c it was never negotiated to them), but not where it is a primary creditor or&purchaser of the note itself.


-squirrels