Question

I read in your article about migo as the force of the claim, that the question of when migo operates by virtue of an assessment and when it operates by virtue of the claim depends on whether the defendant’s problem is a weakness in his claim, such that his possession does not help him—in which case migo helps by way of an assessment that removes the weakness in his claim—or whether the problem is that the defendant created a presumption in favor of the plaintiff and the like, which obligates him to bring proof—in which case migo helps as the force of the claim to remove the plaintiff’s presumption, since it is not absolute, given that he could have made a claim under which the plaintiff would not have had that presumption.

My question is: in the case where a person claims, “I already paid,” and is believed by migo on the basis that he could have claimed, “It is forged,” this is one of the cases that proves the idea of the force of the claim, because claiming “It is forged” is brazenness, and also because we advance for orphans the claim “I paid” by migo on the basis that it is forged, where an assessment seemingly does not apply here. But apparently here the problem is a weakness in his claim, since he cannot claim “I paid” because “What is your document doing in my hand?” There does not seem to be an issue here of creating a presumption, so how does the force of the claim help here?