That doesn’t say she had standing, that said that the issue of standing was irrelevant — I’d have to see more full context to understand exactly why the case was dismissed. It’s patently ludicrous to assert the the judge declared she had standing and then fined her for filing a frivolous suit, though.
I've shown you up-thread, that the judge acknowledge the plaintiff had standing. Her complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
2. I conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The primacy of congress to resolve issues of a candidate’s qualifications to serve as president is established in the U.S. Constitution
She was fined, by reading the tone of the decision, because the judge clearly doesn't like "birthers" even though the esteemed judge doesn't define what a "birther" is:
The birther movement has been a subplot on the fringe of the political spectrum in the U.S. for about five years....
I began this explanation of my decision with some history of the birther movement, and I conclude with some more history.
“....because plaintiff purports to bring this case under RCW 29A.68.011, subparts 1 and 3, which confers standing on any elector.”
The RCW confers standing to any elector. It is that simple.