ESPN’s latest Mock Draft has Anderson going to the Spurs with the 26th pick. Good for him!

ESPN’s Schlabach has Cal in the Emerald Bowl vs. Boston College. For what it’s worth.

The proposed judgment is available now. Basically it says that the petitioners were right all along so the university has to withdrawal the EIR and everything…until such time as it has verified the valuation issues and scrapped plans for extra events.
Oh and also that petitioners are awarded the costs of the suit because man, that son of a bee was expensive.
Overall, I feel that this is a thoroughly mediocre effort. They seem to have settled for merely going through the motions. Where’s the passion? The grit? The aplomb???
Grade: C.

Probate doesn’t have this process, so you must all excuse my ignorance. But it seems to me that this seems like negotiations between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs start off with their offer re: the judgment. Then, the defendants response with their offer.

Now, is the judge going to mix and match or just choose the best one? Either way, if I understand this situation correctly, this is not the smartest way to go about things. The plaintiffs have very little leverage to speak of and are trying to force their best case scenario upon our beloved UC Cal. It seems like almost a giant slap in the face to the Judge.

I mean I understand why. They have nothing to lose, really.

But if I understand this correctly, doesn’t this extreme proposed Order make it more likely that the Judge would go with Cal’s (as long as it isn’t equally as extreme)?

Berkeley Daily Planet article on meeting last night in City Council.

Due to a technicality, they didn’t vote on anything. Some excerpts:

"UC won nothing in the courts—they have no right to build anything " student Matthew Taylor told the council, asking the council to have the barricades removed from the city’s streets. (Although the judge ruled last week in the lawsuit that pits the university against the city, a neighborhood organization and the Oaks Foundation over the question of building the training facility, both sides see the outcome differently and are still in court debating their interpretations of what the judge said.)

The most notable event at the Tuesday night/Wednesday morning City Council meeting was what did not happen: the council scheduled the issue of the health and safety of the tree sitters as an emergency item, then refused to extend the meeting late enough to discuss and vote on the matter.

With two councilmembers absent and five votes required, just four councilmembers supported the time extension—Spring, Worthington and councilmembers Darryl Moore and Max Anderson. As the clock struck 12:30 a.m., the meeting ended abruptly.

That caused yelling and general pandemonium among the 15 or so tree-sit supporters who remaining in the Council Chambers.

After a limited number of speakers from the audience—including a woman who calls herself "BP Bear" and who delivered a cardboard "backbone" to Mayor Tom Bates to encourage him and the council to stand up to the university—Councilmember Kriss Worthington took a call from a tree-sitter in the grove and told the council: "Based on the testimony I heard on the telephone from the tree sitters, they have indicated that it is truly an emergency situation. They said their lives are in danger."

Matthew Taylor, the legal scholar from above, is seen in this photo from ProtestShooter.com:

I recognize him as one of the hippies from the “Special Activism Training.” He was the only one who didn’t think it was a good idea to wear masks, because people would think they are terrorists. Aren’t they eco-terrorists? Also, his plan to stop the police was to yell at them and then lower the volume of his voice. This would ostensibly calm the police down. The police seem plenty calm to me, already.

A good guy, him.

Marshawn will plead to a traffic violation.

Clark also refused to discuss which charge Lynch would plead guilty to, but the section on exercising due care seems to fit the facts of the case.

Section 1146 of the state’s Vehicle and Traffic Law says, in part, "every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian or domestic animal upon any roadway."