When interacting/corresponding/contracting with an opposite party it’s relatively easy to become emotional and make statements on what they did, you did, they didn’t do, they should have done etc etc. So what? Well, it undermines your position and leads to argument and controversy that requires a referee to resolve. The bottom line is you can’t prove anything – you’re bias in the matter at hand. So what to do about it?
To overcome this dilemma, place the onus of proof on the other party. Don’t argue, don’t make statements, don’t answer questions – an authority doesn’t do any of these things. If you do make statements and answer questions it undermines your authority and reduces your status back to a debtor (a person who cannot do anything). In addition, affidavits should also be placing the onus of proof back onto the other party (eg an Affidavit of Negative Averment, see a public side example here)
Magistrate to Creditor standing in court: “Mr Jones, please come into the bar”, response could be “I conditionally accept your offer to be Mr Jones on proof of claim that I am not here as a Secured Party Creditor with a priority security interest in Mr Jones and an accommodation party appearing specially for the purpose of…..”
Setoff of a fine/charge on the private side. “I conditionally accept your offer to pay any outstanding debt for Mr Jones on proof of claim that the account has not been setoff, settled and closed”
and, “Has the setoff not settled and closed the matter making your offer moot?”
Hence, like the last sentence above, rather than responding to questions with answers….you can respond with a question eg
Q: “I didn’t receive the documents, did you send them?”,
A: “Did you not receive the documents from the 3rd party acceptor/presenter and is there not a certificate of service on the court file?”
The job of the public is to distract and get you back into an argument. There’s nothing wrong with their approach it’s their job. It’s up to you whether you let them.