james, you keep posting this quote by Clay Land. I know you’re not as stupid as he is, when he said: “Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status.” Does the judge not know that states require candidates (or their representatvies) to swear that they are eligible on the nomination/ballot forms?? Who else would have the burden of proof but the person swearing such a claim??
From the Wikipedia entry on “burden of proof:”
Civil law
In civil law cases, the “burden of proof” requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover. However, in cases of proving loss of future earning capacity, the plaintiff must prove there is a real or substantial possibility of such a loss occurring.
The burden of proof must be distinguished from the “burden of going forward,” which simply refers to the sequence of proof, as between the plaintiff and defendant. The two concepts are often confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof