Though it is common knowledge--and common sense--that the claimant in any instant action has the onus probandi, I think his obligation to substantiate his claim isn't necessarily automatic. After all, in life we regularly honor claims (demands for performance) made against us without even considering asking for proof thereof, e.g., a monthly utility bill, or a friend's request for repayment of the $5 he lent you last month. In these examples we'd be well within our rights to do so, but we neither want to be regarded as dishonorable jackasses looking to weasel out of agreements we made in good faith, nor do we wish to suffer the backlash (possible interruption of electrical service, or broken friendship).
Therefore, to be binding and "actionable" the formula is:
claimant's claim + respondent's demand claimant "proves up" (or backs up) = claimant's obligation to "put up" (or shut up)
Absent that demand, I think the presumption the claim is legitimate may stand because of the respondent's failure to exercise what is his right--this not just legal but everyday human interaction procedural remedy. Many people will let their ego get the better of them and will argue with the claimant by trying to outdo the claimant with greater or enough evidence to offset the claim. They effectively assume the claimant's burden of having to prove something when they (respondent) had nothing to do but to demand that the claimant, as we say in the vernacular, "put up or shut up".
Do territorial courts have judicial authority within the Sovereign Free and Independent States of the Confederacy, The United States of America or are they simply administrative courts of territories of United States?
1 post • Page 1 of 1