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.
You're here confusing the pleading and evidentiary phases of a civil suit. Earlier you were trying to make it sound as if the defendant has the burden to rebut with evidence the allegations of the plaintiff, as if the mere allegations stand on their own once denied by the defendant. In your words:
"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."
Rather, the plaintiff has initial the burden of coming forward with some positive, credible evidence to support plaintiff's allegations. It can be the case that plaintiff's proof is found to be so wanting that the defendant need not make any evidentiary showing. Or even show up, for that matter. This has been the situation with Taitz on a few occasions.
But if a plaintiff does better than Taitz and actually puts some real evidence into play, then what you quoted above becomes relevant: the defendant then has the burden to offer contrary evidence. But the burden of proof ultimately rests with the plaintiff, as I showed earlier:
"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.html
But I have little interest in continuing this lesson on civ. pro. The take-aways from this colloquy remain:
•The judge in Taitz's SSA case cannot and will not order a non-party (like Obama) to "prove" a matter in the case
•The SSA has already made clear to Taitz that there are no records under the "042" SS# pertaining to someone named "Bounel" born around 1890. Though Taitz is simply too stupid to understand this and will flail pointlessly with her Second Amended Complaint.
I'm happy to discuss either of these bullet points.