evidence of standing then try and shift the burden in their argument where they say statements such as please possession the note is in question and that he indorsement on the original no may have been on authorize redemption clues or speculative statements that are insufficient to show that the plaintiff affirmatively lack standing twenty's did not meet their burden to show a lack of standing there evidence amounted to nothing more than speculation that doesn't logically follow from the conform to some proof or documentation that they have standing this is precisely opposite of what the law demands because standing is an affirmative defense is that it is not a plant is not required to plead and prove that standing is proper and h it's a more specific requirement that didn't exist when this case was filed in fact the contrary to that rule states since it requires men to avoid motion practice and the way before then the i m f l did not differentiate between what version of the noted that because the defendants were arguing that there was something wrong with the manner in which the plaintiff got to know that it impacted the plaintiff standing the court said because its defendants claim that something happened regarding the plate got the note it was defendant were invalid it invalidates the indorsement on the original no and defendant your acknowledges at least on some level that the uniform commercial code does give plaintiff at least one avenue there are others but at least one have me toward standing here as he tries she fact says she has dual roles she has she's a department manager and a vice president that both began in june two thousand and four she says she stopped being a department manager in november two thousand and six but then she says later in that deposition she worked for washington mutual for a year after that that which would simply take her through the origination loan she never states that she was not a vice president or enjoyed that role she never states that people used to stamp it out or even actually states explicitly in her deposition she doesn't believe stamp was most that you can challenge in endorsement or an assignment if it would completely void the transfer again or it wouldn't happen here under the uniform commercial code not only can holders in force instruments promissory notes but non holders of possession and  and for the past twenty five years the foreclosure law is not required any specific documentation demonstrating that plaintiff owns the note or the right foreclosure for clothes except the note mortgage this is played up consistently in case after case after documentation was forthcoming and so summary judgment more recently in citi mortgage versus moran the plan to attach an assignment to its complaint not to itself its merce as normal as nominee for itself in each of these cases consistently the court rules no there's no issue here regarding a facial assignment that showed that the plaintiff might not have had standing on the date of the original filing there was no riginal no produced in gilbert there was no affidavit as  struck a pleading as it currently existed which give me arguments made in the motion strike it was really immaterial whether j p morgan or baby was the point the fact remains that from the defense was not well pleaded it wasn't