![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bearing in mind that the blogosphere is inherently vulnerable to amplification effects, this does seem worrisome.
Google cache seems to confirm the decision was temporarily pulled (the URL is a 404), and the revised opinion has oddities in the formatting of the first seven pages which match the (not at all odd) formatting of the first seven pages of the purported original. (Note particularly p. 3, which in the revised version loses a line, and p. 7, where the redaction notice appears.)
I don't have time to research this properly. But there's certainly something wrong here.
Google cache seems to confirm the decision was temporarily pulled (the URL is a 404), and the revised opinion has oddities in the formatting of the first seven pages which match the (not at all odd) formatting of the first seven pages of the purported original. (Note particularly p. 3, which in the revised version loses a line, and p. 7, where the redaction notice appears.)
I don't have time to research this properly. But there's certainly something wrong here.