As I read many court decisions, I am seeing a frequent statement. The Court often states that the defendants did not challenge the authenticity of the note or the document signatures. It is not the defendants' burden to disprove authenticity, but it is their responsibility to object, or else they accept the note and signatures as authentic.
I pay close attention to statements in the decisions about what the parties involved fail to do, as I figure the Court could be telling me something I need to know.
As most here know, Mr. Roper and others have said repeatedly: Object, object, object!
If I'm wrong about this, I'm sure someone will beat me down and call me an idiot!