is this an 'affirmative defense'?
pg 26 Defense:
Line2: "...,I [defense council] raised the issue as an affirmative defense
regarding the endorsement on there. I assert, that, according to the statue, that the burden is shifting
The transcript reflects that this defense attorney is totally IGNORANT and UNABLE to make a coherent argument.
The argument reflects an element of two issues upon which the plaintiff has the burden of proof, neither of which is an affirmative defense.
One issue relates to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Standing is an element of subject matter jurisdiction and a plaintiff must show standing both at commencement of the suit and throughout the case. If a plaintiff ceases to have standing, the court loses subject matter jurisdiction, as the matter before the court is moot.
The right to enforce the note is also an essential element of a plaintiff's cause of action on a suit on a note.
To be entitled to enforce the note as a holder, the plaintiff need to be either the original payee of the instrument and in possession of the instrument or must have become the holder through a valid negotiation from a prior holder.
Negotiation under the UCC requires indorsement and delivery.
Denial of indorsement therefore is a regular primary defense implicating both the plaintiff standing and right to enforce the instrument, both of which are the plaintiff's burden of proof.
Because Matt Weidner is a BUFFOON and DOESN'T KNOW the difference between a regular and an affirmative defense, he walks into court day after day and undermines and even eviscerates his own best arguments by incorrectly suggesting to the court that his CLIENT bears the burden of proof as to points where the burden belongs to the plaintiff.
If Mr. Weidner spent his time studying Mr. Roper's many thoughtful posts here at the Forum or even reading appellate cases, he might LEARN the successful arguments which are necessary to WIN cases. Instead, he is merely committed to self-promotion. He seems to sponsor or encourage parrots like Ann to spread legally incorrect information, undermining the interests of distressed borrowers.
The posted transcript serves NOT to show that the Judge made an incorrect decision, but rather that since Matt Weidner DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND REGULAR DEFENSES THAT HE SHIFTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO KEY POINTS TO HIS CLIENT EVERY DAY!
DO NOT USE THIS INCOMPETENT ATTORNEY!
In my view, Mr. Weidner's clients have a strong case for legal malpractice!