You’re confusing a criminal trial with a civil suit.
In a criminal complaint, the prosecutor submits charges of violations of law by the defendant. The Court assumes the defendant is innocent until proven guilty of the charges. It is up to the prosecutor to prove their case while the defendant pokes holes in the prosecutor’s case to create doubt.
In a civil suit, allegations are made by the plaintiff and those allegations are considered to be true until the defendant proves the allegations do not have merit by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant has the right to move for dismissal of the civil suit without answering the allegations if the plaintiff does not have standing to sue the defendant.
If the case is not dismissed for standing, the defendant must deny the allegations before the defendant can prove the allegations are without merit. If the defendant denies the allegations, discovery can be requested. During the discovery, the plaintiff can request subpoenas to obtain certified copies of original documents from primary witnesses. Primary witness are the persons who control the original documents; such as, the Commissioner of SSA or Deputy Commissioner of the SSA.
Evidence from secondary witnesses are ignored until the primary witnesses have been deposed. A secondary witness is a rebuttal witness and will only be heard and have their evidence examined as a rebuttal to the primary witnesses.
If the primary witness claims evidence subpoenaed by the Plaintiff cannot be found or does not exist, the plaintiff informs the Court and the defendant a rebuttal witness will be called at trial. A rebuttal witness is not specifically named or the evidence that will be presented in rebuttal will not be identified to prevent the defendant from intimidating or interfering with the evidence to be presented by the rebuttal witness.
For example, Orly alleges Obama is ineligible to be President because he is not a natural born citizen. The Court will ask for relevance. Once relevance is established, under the De Facto Officer Doctrine, the Court must proceed as if Obama is a usurper unless be appears before the Court and proves he eligible. Obama is not a defendant in Orly’s case. He has a choice to appear or not to appear. If he does not appear, the Court must proceed as if the President is ineligible and his laws, executive orders, appointments and rule are objectionable by a defendant with standing.
Obama’s eligibility is relevant to Orly’s case because he appointed the SSA Commissioner who is a defendant in Orly’s lawsuit. If Orly objects to the appointments made by a usurper, then the objection must be sustained by the Court and an agreement will have to be negotiated between Orly and the SSA to search the records requested. If Orly does not object by making a motion of objection to the Court, then Obama’s laws, rules, regulations and appointments are valid and the Court must proceed as if the President is eligible for the Office under the De Facto Officer Doctrine.
No, I'm not.
The civil procedure rules used by all U.S. Courts require a plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-in-civil-law.htmlSven, in addition to a law school degree, I have passed the Bar exam in 3 separate jurisdictions and have 20-plus years of private legal practice. So you're not wise to "school" me on these points. My interest in pursuing this point is not whether you're wrong (I know you are) but the "why and how" of how someone gets off-track. What is your source for claiming "In a civil suit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the defendant denies the allegations?"
I'm genuinely curious. From where did you derive this (erroneous) notion?