lower court hears an appeal from a governmental agency de novo, the burden is upon the governmental body “to prove all of the elements, both procedural and substantive necessary to support its adjudication.” We thus concluded that the township had the burden of going forward with the evidence. The burden was properly placed on the township because it was the township’s duty to show initially that the suspension and demotion were merited. We elicit from Lawrence Township that where the parties begin the litigation all over again the burden of proof should be identical to that before the local agency. In the instant case, however, we hold that the burden of proof was always with Hamot. See Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1, 13 n. 7, 487 A.2d 1306, 1312 n. 7 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court
holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances holding that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for all elements of section 523a15 holding that where there is a review of a charitable exemption in light of a change in circumstances the entity seeking to retain its taxexempt status bears the burden of proof