What you posted has nothing to do with any judge verifying the credibility of anything Sinclair said or wrote about. It was about the plaintiff failing to meet a standard.
Either you know this and were trying to obfuscate or you don't know the meaning of what you yourself posted.
I don't care either way but you can bet that convicted con-man, fraud, identity thief, drug dealer, gay hustler Sinclair thanks God that there are dupes like you out there.
Don't put words in my mouth. In comment #52 I said the judge found pro se plaintif Sinclair to be credible, not anything about the judge "verifying the credibility of anything Sinclair said or wrote about." You mixed to things there: the judge verifying what Sinclair said (he didn't) and the judge finding Sinclair's account to be credible (the judge did).
Here is a web definition of credible:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credible
"Definition of CREDIBLE:
"1: offering reasonable grounds for being believed "
To prevail, IIRC, Axelrod's legal team had to prove that Sinclair was not credible either by smearing him (as you have done to him and to me) or by proving that what Sinclair said was factually false. Axelrod tried to do both but failed to do either one. Sinclair, pro se, prevailed.
The judge found Sinclair's pro se legal defense to the effect that Axelrod's team had failed to disprove his allegations against Obama to be credible, i.e. "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."