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?
Here’s a copy and paste from the link you posted ...
“Shifting Burden of Proof in Civil Cases: Who Gets To Prove What?
In civil cases, the plaintiff starts out with the “burden of proof.” This means that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did the wrong act. However, once the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to prove this, the burden then shifts to the defendant, who must offer more evidence that he more than likely did not do the act.”
As I said, the plaintiff makes an allegation in a civil suit. If the defendant files a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must prove standing, jurisdiction, etc. So far, all eligibility cases have been dismissed because the plaintiff cannot prove they have standing to overcome the Will of the People who have elected an ineligible President. If the case survives a motion to dismiss, the defendant must deny or affirm the allegations. If the defendant affirms the allegations, the Court rules the allegations have merit and the case proceeds to a hearing on damages.
If the defendant denies the allegations, the plaintiff may move the Court to have a Discovery Conference to begin the process of obtaining evidence from primary sources. It is in the Discovery process the plaintiff obtains evidence to prove their allegations. The Court ignores all evidence and testimony presented before Discovery because the chain of custody is suspect. The chain of custody is well maintained through the discovery process.
In the event primary evidence is unobtainable because a witness testifies it does not exist or cannot be found, a plaintiff can call a rebuttal witness to prove the allegations. A rebuttal witness is a secondary witness and not subject to deposition. A rebuttal witness is ignored by the Court until a primary witness testifies evidence does not exist or cannot be found.
It is common for supporters of the defendant to publicly demand a plaintiff present their rebuttal witnesses prior to trail. Ironically, the Court ignores rebuttal witnesses until primary witnesses, the people who have custody of the evidence, have testified under oath. As an officer of the Court, you know all of these statements are true and carefully explained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.