This fax thing is suspicious, particularly in the context of the written decision allegedly containing language dismissing the plaintiff’s claims as “ridiculous, untrue, frivolous, etc.”
In an earlier thread I described these characterizations as beyond the purview of a proper decision on a motion to dismiss, and was clearly overkill by a verbose judge, for whom 34 pages of diatribe seemed appropriate.
Perhaps the decision was written by a partisan hack.
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Berg’s attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did “not constitute an injury in fact” and Berg’s arguments to the contrary “ventured into the unreasonable.”
That seems to me to be a very good point. It might be illuminating to compare, if possible, this decision with other decisions Surrick has made in order to do a “stylographic” analysis. If they’re very different, that would certainly indicate different authors.
Please ping me regarding your conclusions.