<>No, that document had absolutely no impact on that particular judge’s decision. That judge - Land I believe, granted defendant’s motion dismiss for one reason - plaintiff’s failed to meet the requisite obligation of standing. That’s it.<>
No — it was Judge Robertson, the twitter judge in the Hollister Case who wrote in his opinion:
“The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court”.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90955
What was presented to him from the internet influenced his decision by his own words.
No, it didn't. Legal opinions can be dangerous things when read by people who weren't trained to understand them.
Again, different case, same set of circumstances. Just because a judge writes something in his opinion, it doesn't mean (necessarily) it's relevant to his decision on the matters of law before him/her. That case was dismissed by Robertson because plaintiff's failure to meet the requirements set forth in FRCP 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted...
Whatever musings the judge offers up in addition to the legal reason he granted defendant's MTD, are just editorial comments.
Incidentally, in a per curium opinion by the DC Circuit, that dismissal was affirmed.