I wrote a rather lengthy reply in a good-faith effort to try to answer your questions. In response you said, "also, a little more english and a little less legaleze would make conversing quicker and more efficient…"
This after my reply contained the following translations of legalese into English:
(1) "preponderance of the evidence" which roughly means something more than 50%.
(2) it is really to determine whether the respondent has negotiated the hurdle of articulating a legal case.
(3) A plenary hearing occurs with witnesses and evidence such as documents or physical objects
(4) I believe they will have the burden of proof by the preponderance of the evidence to show their affirmative defense which is that the science is false, or, put another way, their statements concerning the falsity of global warming are true.
You might also note that the reply builds upon these previous English translations of the legalese so that the statement at the end should be quite clear to the lay reader.
As I said, I'm not fresh in my memory about whether the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the truth of their alleged libel, but I think it does. Nor am I clear, as I said, about what burden of proof they must meet in doing so.
I trust the matter as well is the language is now clear.
